IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

7th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY,

FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD’S

Case No. : CA 03-542 (55)

Plaintiff,

vs.

KARL ARONSON,

Defendant.

_________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF SUZON FORSCEY-MOORE

_________________________________________

I, Suzon Forscey-Moore, of 53 Abbey Road, Cambridge, England CB5 8HH, based

upon my personal knowledge, hereby declare as follows:

Introduction

1. I am a citizen of the United States and a naturalized subject of the United

Kingdom. I was born and grew up in Jamestown, New York and moved to the Los

Angeles area where I lived for 25 years. I first came to England in 1976 while a

student at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. Pitzer awarded me a BA in

English in 1977. I moved to Cambridge, England in 1987. In 1992, I began to

campaign for ministerial accountability. In 1996, I began campaigning for judicial

reform. In January 2001 I was awarded a Master’s degree in law by DeMontfort

University in Leicester, England for my dissertation on The Prerogative of

Summing Up in Miscarriages of Justice in the Crown Courts of England & Wales. I

began work on a PhD on the English Civil Justice system at Anglia Ruskin

University in Cambridge in September, 2002.

2. I make this affidavit at the request of Charles B. Lembcke, counsel for Karl

Aronson. I have been advised that it will be submitted in response to the question

posed by the Court at the hearing on Lloyd’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to

whether the English legal system offers fair and impartial tribunals.

3. The true nature of the English legal system should be properly established

for the protection of past and future investors who are citizens of the United States

and other jurisdictions as English courts are, despite their considerable reputation,

neither fair nor impartial.

4. This affidavit contains material which may be outside of the norms of

evidence. However, due to historical and cultural differences and in the context of

the important issue to be decided, descriptive material is relevant and necessary if

the Florida Court is to reach a well-founded and defensible decision.

5. Contemporary hearings in English courts may be best understood as

traditional theatrical rituals in which agents dressed in ceremonial 18th century

costume unselfconsciously honor their oath of loyalty to the Queen by dismissing

and/or punishing unimportant people for their foolish insistence on justice and fair

play. Courts in other jurisdictions should distance themselves from the perverse

character of English law where unexamined belief in an hereditary system of

privilege trumphs the fair application of principles of law.

6. It would be wrong for the Florida Court to turn a blind eye to a system in

which the rights of the individual are sacrificed for a perceived but unjustifiable

greater good, the protection of a privileged hereditary elite.

Jaffray v. Lloyd’s in the Court of Appeal for England & Wales

7. This case reveals, through its historical context and in the recent conduct of

the English judiciary in Jaffray, that financial affairs and affairs of state in the

United Kingdom, have been and continue to be decided by a secretive elite

largely composed of and of mutual benefit to hereditary aristocrats.

8. Lloyd’s of London, an international insurance underwriter, evolved from

transactions between shipowners, merchants and insurers in the 1680’s. It

was given a unique status by Parliament in the Lloyd’s Act of 1862. Lloyd’s names

were men of considerable wealth and influence.

9. Until greater suffrage was allowed in the1830’s, Parliament was openly run

by the hereditary aristocracy, men who used their positions to pass laws for their

own benefit, whether that was legitimising their bastards or raising the price of

grain or deciding the most advantageous location of a new canal.

10. The aristocracy did not have to relinquish their power to continue to order

things to their personal advantage. Every elected Member of Parliament (MP) has

to swear allegiance to the Queen in order to be able to speak, to have an office and

be paid.

11. The United Kingdom of which England is the dominant nation is selfdescribed

as a “constitutional monarchy” even though there is no constitution and

no current plans to adopt one. The Royal Prerogative, a notion undefined in law and

operating without parliamentary oversight, allows ministers, judges and other

administrators unlimited and unrestrained use of power.

12. In 2004, the House Select Committee on Public Administration studied the

Royal Prerogative. The result was that ministers proposed to entrench their

secretive powers under the Royal Prerogative in the Legislative Regulatory and

Reform Bill which opponents labeled the Abolition of Parliament Bill.

13. Crown immunity is the mechanism which enables the prerogative. It is

accepted by those in power that anything which is “done in the name of the

Crown”--every administrative, legislative and judicial action--is immune from

prosecution. The assumption is that those in power can do no wrong.

14. The Royal Arms in the form of the Lion and Unicorn and a motto which

proclaims Dieu et mon droit (French for God and my right) presided over the Court

of Appeal in Jaffray, just as they hang behind the bench in English courtrooms and

appear on the letterheads of the Queen’s government. This is no outdated and

quaint symbol but a genuine emblem of the Queen’s overarching authority.

15. There is also a mostly hidden motto on the Royal Arms: Honi soit qui mal y

pense, which is French for “Shame on whoever thinks evil of this”. Criticism of the

Queen and the hereditary system she represents is pre-condemned.

16. Americans pledge their allegiance to a flag which represents a nation where

the ideal is liberty and justice for all. In England everyone in a position of authority

pledges their allegiance to the Queen, an individual who by accident of birth

inherited unlimited powers of patronage. Neither Parliament nor the Judiciary have

any restraining effect.

17. When the interests of the Queen and any part of her elite government are

at risk, only one outcome is acceptable. Legal proceedings in English courts

are therefore driven to that outcome by fair means or foul.

18. Criminal law (which is of little concern to the hereditary powers) is highly

codified. Government at all levels, however, has "codes" and "guidelines" which

can be breached freely. The conduct of the commoner is ruthlessly scrutinized

while misconduct by their “betters” goes unpunished. White collar crime, with

very rare exceptions, goes untried and unpunished in English law.

The Action

19. In the civil action in England’s Court of Appeal in the matter of Jaffray v The

Society of Lloyd’s, the court found that the Lloyd’s sales brochures used to attract

investors had misrepresented their audits as “rigorous” and “true and fair”. The

court found that these statements were both untrue and material. The court also

found that Lloyd’s had “no audit at all”. Lloyd’s misled investors, creating financial

ruin for tens of thousands. The mental and physical trauma of this would lead to

suicides and early graves, yet the Court of Appeal, in its great serenity, failed to

hold Lloyds to account.

20. In the Jaffray hearing, witnesses could not be cross-examined because of a

perverse requirement that the cross-examiner accept the witness statement as

true before cross-examination. This not only impedes the search for truth, but

protects an unprincipled witness from the (however unlikely) risk of being

prosecuted for perjury.

21. Litigants in person were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses at all, a

clear demonstration of unequal treatment (in 1993-94, litigants in person had a

96% failure rate in the Court of Appeal).

22. Fraudulent concealment was not allowed to be at issue in Jaffray. The

doctrines of fraudulent concealment and/or fraudulent non-disclosure are not

recognised under English law.

23. The Jaffray appeal was not misconducted under English law (no such thing

is possible given the English judge's unfettered discretion), but English law does

not recognise the delivery of justice and remedy to those who have been defrauded

as its duty. The English Court of Appeal accepted that it had a higher duty to uphold

private legislation rubberstamped by Parliament.

Immunity

24. Names who have suffered damage and loss have been denied

compensation because Section 14 of the Lloyd’s Act of 1982 grants Lloyd’s

immunity. Self-granted and undeserved immunity is an almost universal

characteristic of English law. Immunity confers privilege and undeserved privilege

is inequality.

25. Lloyd’s had immunity for all acts except intentional fraud. The authors of the

act would have known that intent is hard to prove and easy to deny.

26. Judges are covered by Crown immunity in all their actions. Barristers cannot

be sued for negligence. Geoffrey Robertson QC, a barrister with 25 years

experience stated in regard to this immunity (1999):: "...[B]arristers are well paid

and immune to actions for negligence...They cling to their immunity from actions

for negligence - an unjustified privilege which protects incompetents from being

sued."

27. Some barristers can earn as much as £3 million (over $5 million) in a year.

They may be highly skilled, but their main value to clients may be in the high fees

they charge. English courts can and frequently do make the losing side pay some

or all of the other side’s costs. Parties will settle rather than face costs that could

bankrupt them.

28. Combine the barrister’s immunity with his weatlhy client’s power of financial

intimidation and there is very little that can’t be done to destroy the chances of any

opposing party. Money decides legal matters.

Failure to Prosecute for Corruption

29. Robertson said about corruption, “I meet colleagues from other countries

who are ‘special prosecutors’, putting behind bars Mafia bosses and masters of

the Wall Street universe, or who head commissions which catch by their white

collars corrupt politicians and public servants and policemen. But in Britain, you

still have to be pretty stupid to end up in prison”.

Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice

30. Mr. Ian Hay Davison, the CEO of the Society of Lloyd’s from 1983 through

1985, wrote a letter to a distressed Lloyd’s name saying that:

Mr. John Taylor 3rd December 1997

Holly Tree House

Sotherton Wangford

Beccles

Suffolk NR34 8AL

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for your letter of 23rd November. During my time at Lloyd’s

and subsequently I had a series of lengthy interviews with the Serious

Fraud Office concerning the various frauds. Regrettably, the

Government, on policy grounds, decided not to prosecute any of

those involved and no successful prosecutions were brought.

(my emphasis) I was, and remain, extremely indignant and disappointed at

this.

Yours sincerely

From Ian Hay Davison

31. When Hay Davison brought matters to the attention of the authorities, he did

so in the hopes that they would prosecute and bring criminal proceedings, but no

steps were taken. In a witness statement, he said,

“I continue to regard that as being a major strategic mistake taken at the

highest level of Government. It allowed Lloyd's to believe that it could

operate effectively above and beyond the law (my emphasis)”. Such a

cultural belief, whether true or not, can only lead to arrogance and a

disregard of legal requirements. In my opinion that is precisely what has

happened at Lloyd's since 1986.”

32. He added, "[T]here must be something wrong with a system of criminal

justice in which a shoplifter goes to jail for petty theft and a City fraudster, who

may have stolen millions, gets away scot free" (my emphasis).

Violation of Article VII of the Bill of Rights

33. In English civil law, the trial judge can deny trial by jury, as happened in

Jaffray. US litigants unwillingly compelled to take their chances in English

courts lost the protection guaranteed to them in Article VII of the Bill of Rights: “In

Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,

the right to trial by jury shall be preserved”. In Jaffray, US citizens were deprived of

one of their most important constitutional rights, trial by jury. On that ground alone,

finding English courts equivalent to US courts would be wrong. The Founding

Fathers wrote an unqualified protection of the individual into the US Constitution.

The Fiction of an Impartial and Independent Judiciary

34. English judges have been drawn from what Americans would call the upper

classes (“male, pale and stale”). Almost all High Court judges are graduates of

Oxford and Cambridge, universities so elite that students are freed from lowly tasks

like making their own beds and doing their laundry.

35. English judges are political appointees chosen by the Lord Chancellor by a

“secret soundings” process (just recently to be replaced by a commission) who

cannot be disciplined for misconduct. Circuit judges are given luxurious houses

(and cooks, cars and drivers) as public hotel accommodation might somehow

contaminate and compromise their independence.

36. However, five of the judges who presided over Jaffray and other Lloyd’s

litigation in the High Court and Appeal Court are on the Contributing Faculty of the

London Law Shipping Centre of which Lloyd’s is a sponsor.

37. In England, partnerships, memberships, societies and associations are

much more important in public administration. Some official working partnerships

are between local authorities (district and city councils), police and the courts. They

work as one and not necessarily for the public good.

38. English legal practitioners--lawyers and judges--regularly dine together in

the Inns of Court.

39. I have seen a judge refuse to recuse himself from hearing a case of

“scandalisint the court” when he was one of the nine judges who had been

accused of treason.

40. When the Birmingham Six, whose convictions for an IRA bombing were

overturned after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment, sued the police, accusing

them of assault, the then Head of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal stopped

the action saying, "If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of

perjury...and that the convictions were erroneous...this is such an appauling vista

that every person in the land would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should

go any further'".

41. That is not much different from from the Court of Appeal refusing to follow the

implications of Lloyd's criminal activities in Jaffray.

42. Eight years later (1988), the same judge followed up by saying about the

Birmingham Six after the evidence of the injustice had been made clear, "It is better

that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial

system be impugned".

43. That is not much different from the Court of Appeal effectively saying in

Jaffray, "It is better that thousands of people are wrongly made destitute than the

integrity of Lloyd's (and the government which should have deterred Lloyd's fraud)

be impugned".

44. The judge who made the comments above was the much revered Lord

Denning, a decent, moral, intelligent and articulate man deemed "the people's

judge" and "the judge of the 20th century". Denning's reputation and the system's

reputation had become entwined. Finding fault with the system was beyond him.

Individuals for whom the system works, will see no need to analyse it. It is the

victims on whom that difficult burden falls.

45. Inquiries into possible government misconduct are placed into the hands

of Law Lords who are usually Privy Councillors (q.v.) sitting in Parliament in the

House of Lords. Their inquiries proceed along predictable lines: (1)a

conveniently limited remit; (2) an investigation inside that remit; (3) a lengthy

exposition of the evidence gathered; (4) some sharp words of rebuke, usually

limited to minor points; and (5) an exoneration of the government. The reports

published by Lord Butler (into the “sexed-up” dossier on Iraq and WMD’s),

Lord Hutton (on the death of Dr David Kelley) and Lord Justice Scott (on the

Matrix-Churchill arms to Iraq scandal) all follow this pattern.

No Separation of Powers

46. In the late 19th century, the constitutional authority Walter Bagehot

declared the obvious, that there was no division between executive, legislative and

judicial power. The English legal system is not significantly different than it was in

1850-51 when Dickens was writing about its destructive nature in Bleak House.

The Lord Chancellor is still the head of the judiciary, a party politician, the most

privileged member of the administration and an unelected member of Parliament

in the House of Lords.

47. Bagehot wrote that “Just as the American is the type of composite

Governments, in which the supreme power is divided between many bodies and

functionaries, so the English is the type of simple Constitutions, in which the

ultimate power upon all questions is in the hands of the same persons (my

emphasis)”.

The Privy Council….A Secret Government

48. The government of the United Kingdom is like a parade float, carefully

designed to be admired on the outside (“British justice is the best in the

world”), with the driving mechanisms hidden and the driver unseen. The Privy

Council, originally a secret group of advisors to the monarch, exists to this day,

uniting in common cause the Law Lords, Appeal Court judges, Cabinet ministers

and leaders of opposition parties with Princes, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Barons

and Bishops from the Church of England.

49. Privy Councillors, including Appeal Court judges, swear an oath to place

the interests of the Monarch above all else (“You will to your uttermost bear faith

and allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty”) in direct contradiction to their judicial oath

to adjudicate “without fear or favour”. The oath also enshrines secrecy: “You will in

all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council...keep secret all Matters

committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated secretly in Council”.

An Accommodating Press

50. In 1979 on a BBC TV program, a prominent newspaper publisher was

asked whether it was true that he had once said that if his reporters uncovered

a Watergate type scandal in Britain he would have difficulties in allowing them to

print the story. He replied, 'I believe in Britain first...If it would harm Britain, I

would suppress it.'"

Threat of Order to Pay the Other Side’s Costs

51. I chose not to go to law to complain of fraud (though the evidence was

irrefutable) for the following reasons: (1) I have observed that it is almost always

the party with higher status who wins; (2) I have observed that the police and

Crown Prosecution Service cannot be relied upon to take action; (3) I have

observed that judges split attempted class actions into individual complaints and

then turn a blind eye to the aggregate loss and damage; and (4) I could be made to

pay not only my own more predictable legal costs but also the other side’s

potentially ruinous legal costs. There is no limit to the costs that can accrue.

52. The threat of having to pay the legal costs of a party with very deep pockets is

the factor which most deterred me from taking a dishonest person to court. I have

been denied justice and--due to his status--he remains free to continue to corrupt

my elected representatives and defraud other people.

53. Judges have even been known to require the winning party to pay all of the

losing party’s costs.

54. In a 1999 report on access to justice, the then Head of the Civil Division

admitted that English civil law was “too expensive, too slow, too unequal, too

uncertain, too fragmented and--to many--incomprehensible (my emphasis)”.

55. Any legal system which is too expensive, too slow, too unequal and too

uncertain provides a strong temptation for all manner and forms of wrongdoing.

Attitudes Towards European Law

.

56. When in November, 1996 the then Lord Chancellor journeyed to Strasbourg,

France, to ask the European Court of Human Rights to respect the right of British

courts to manage their own affairs “in full recognition of their national character,

traditions, religious beliefs, and moral standards”, he echoed the journalist and

MP, Edmund Burke who set out the case (1790) for accepting society as it is.

Burke asserted that society could not be judged by rational standards and found

wanting. This defence of the status quo is exactly what Tom Paine argued

against in the Rights of Man. It's an admission from the highest source that the UK

desires and intends to deviate from European Law.

57. When a senior Law Lord was acting as the Queen’s Visitor (a Privy

Councillor with powers to adjudicate in university disputes) he refused to allow an

open hearing with public and press on the grounds that he saw “no reason to do

things any differently than we always have done” despite the student citing a

European Court ruling (Scarth v United Kingdom) in which the government had

given an undertaking to allow open hearings under most circumstances.

Secret Government Vetting of Jurors

58. According to Robertson, between 1974 and 1978 no fewer than twenty-five

cases involved secret vetting of the jury panel. This involved a secret prosecution

application to the trial judge who would order court officials to hand to Special

Branch (similar to the CIA) a list of the names and addresses and occupations of

jurors on the panel for a particular trial, so that “checks” could be made with police

and security records to see whether any juror was listed as having strong political

views, or any hostility to the state (e.g., by making a complaint against the police).

Prosecuting counsel could then challenge the reason given. Any information

suggesting that the juror would be hostile to the defendant would never be

supplied to the defense, because that would give the secret vetting game away.

59. The whole system had been kept quiet, in the hope that lawyers and MPs

would never find out. [An official] claimed to have drawn up 'firm safeguards' to

ensure that the system was not abused, but these too were of course secret, so no

one could ever know whether they were firm, or even whether they had been

followed.

60. William Pitt used specially vetted juries to convict for sedition defendants

who sympathised with the French Revolution. Jeremy Bentham's Elements of Jury

Packing (1821) condemned a vetting system "which is regular, quietly established

and quietly suffered. Not only is the yoke already about our necks, but our neck is

already fashioned for it."

Ex-parte Communications

61. On 15 January 1997, I was contacted by Mr Geoffrey Scriven, an English

businessman living in Manchester, England. He was a Litigant in Person who had

been given “the restricted green papers” along with his bundle by a judge who told

him, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, Mr Scriven”.

62. While waiting to receive photocopies of Mr Scriven’s green papers, I recalled

being told by another Litigant in Person, “We always lose...It’s decided in

advance...Some people have papers to prove it.” Within two days I had obtained

copies of green papers from Mr Dennis Gardner of Nottinghamshire, England and

Mr Peter Prankerd of Devon, England.

63. The green paper documents, identical in format, were headed Court of

Appeal, Civil Division and bore the title SUMMARY in a distinctive typeface. The

dates were 18 February 1991 (Gardner), 9 March 1992 (Prankerd) and 8 July 1996

(Scriven). Each was stamped in red: IMPORTANT: THESE PAPERS ARE A PART

OF THE COURT RECORD AND MUST BE HANDED TO THE ASSOCIATE [judge]

AND NOT TO THE PARTIES.

64. Lord Woolf, Head of the Civil Division, in a Court of Appeal Practice

Direction (TLR, 8 December 1998) admits that ex-parte communication were

standard operating procedure when he stated that “Bench memoranda” (delivered

as ex-parte communications) “normally consisted of the facts involved in a

particular appeal, a history of the proceedings in the lower courts, an indication of

the issues on the appeal and any opinion which the judicial assistants had on the

merits of the appeal (my emphasis).”

65. When the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave his Hamlyn

Lectures in November 1993, he said that any submission would be “put before a

judge in accordance with the principles natural justice with an opportunity for them

to be countered by any opposing party”. Yet his own department, the Lord

Chancellor’s Department, had been disregarding that principle for at least two

years.

66. It is my view that such documents, which have every attribute of a ruling

drafted in advance, are not disclosed to the parties because of the possibility of

disputable errors. It is the most important document in your case and you cannot

see, and therefore cannot contest, its contents.

67. Another serious concern is that the government lawyers who prepare these

documents also advise litigants in person on the status of their cases. The litigant

thinks he or she is speaking off the record and informally, when they are effectively

appearing before the bench. Unfortunate the litigant who somehow offends the

summary writer.

68. These documents were prepared for the Court of Appeal, the same court

where the wronged Lloyd’s Names sought justice in the Jaffray appeal.

No Requirement to Report or Investiagate Perjury

69. Perjury can be reasonably assumed to be commonplace in English courts

as there is no legal obligation for authorities to report or investigate it. According to

a recent criminal justice study by Susan S. M. Edwards (2002), when people are

prosecuted and sentenced for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of

justice, only about 1% receive a sentence of three years or more out of a maximum

of four. Perjury is perhaps more likely to take place in civil cases because money

and property are involved, but there has been very little research into the subject.

Transcripts Modified to Prejudice Appeals

70. Transcripts are unreliable because they are edited by the judge before

being "approved". In or about 1997 I was shown a verbatim or unapproved

transcript which was given by mistake to a litigant in a child custody case and the

judge-approved and edited version. The only difference between them was that a

section where the mother was shown to be reasonable and willing to compromise

had been cut. There would have been no reason for the judge to do this except to

prejudice her appeal.

Destruction of Evidence

71. Evidence of serious unprosecuted crime can be destroyed. When in 1993

I found evidence in a Metropolitan Police Report in a Detective Chief Inspector's

distinctive handwriting that he had committed perjury in sworn testimony which

destroyed the defense case in a criminal trial, I made a request of the Official Court

Stenographer at the Old Bailey to preserve the untranscribed notes because they

contained evidence of a police conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, she

refused, even though my MP had backed my request.

Grand Juries Abolished

72. In 1933 the established order became entirely self-regulating when

Parliament abolished grand juries. Ombudsmen tend to find for the complainant in

2-3% of cases.

Plea Bargaining Unknown

73. Plea bargaining, an effective motivating factor in obtaining inside information

from co-operating co-conspirators which enables prosecution for fraud, is

unknown in English law. Whistleblowers are routinely harshly punished as the

legislation which could protect them is ineffective because of lack of enforcement in

the courts. Without plea bargaining, the co-conspirators close ranks so it is little

wonder that almost all the large fraud trials have collapsed or ended in acquittal.

Empirical Evidence

74. The most wide-ranging study ever conducted by an independent body or

government agency (1999) produced empirical evidence that indicates that in

England and Wales a substantial majority of people with non-trivial justiciable

problems live unhappily with injustice in order to avoid going to court.

75. From face-to-face interviews with 1,134 individuals with non-trivial justicable

problems (out of a random sample of 4,125 adults), Professor Hazel Genn of

University College London, found that, although almost all interviewees felt that

they had a moral right to a fair resolution and had sought advice from a Citizens

Advice Bureau, law center or solicitor, 80% took no legal action.

76. Genn concluded that "greater certainty about the enforcement of legal

rights...in the civil context might have an impact on the behaviour of those

who evade their responsiblities...when the likelihood of sanction seems

remote". In less academic terms, if people could be brought to justice, there

wouldn’t be so much wrongdoing.

77. People avoid going to court because of the fundamental flaws (my term) that

the head of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal identified in 1999: “[It is] too

expensive, too slow, too unequal, too uncertain, [my emphasis] too fragmented

and, to many, incomprehensible.”

Some Recent Opinions

78. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King has a prestigious position

in the English regulatory scheme, equivalent to Chairman of the US Federal

Reserve System.

79. The (London) Times reported his remarks on or about 22 June, 2006 as

follows:

“Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, delivered a fierce attack on

the commercial legal system at the Mansion House. Mr. King said the

adversarial system for settling civil legal disputes was in reality 'a

profitable monopoly of lawyers' and called for the Government to take

steps to reform the law.”

80. In a recent Times interview, Robert Wardle, director of the Serious Fraud

Office, warned that the police and prosecution authorities trying to combat fraud are

struggling. In a letter to the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, Wardle said in

his annual report: “There remains a gap between the incidence of fraud and the

number of investigations, let alone prosecutions...I am not suggesting that the

justice gap can be closed--merely narrowed.” At present, he told The Times,

“frauds are going uninvestigated and unprosecuted" (my emphasis).

Conclusion

81. It is my carefully considered opinion given with all due respect, based

upon personal experience and knowledge, that English courts are not fair and

impartial tribunals where things get put right. English courts are corrupt forums

based on unwarranted privilege which perversely excuse and conceal the gravest

misconduct.

Sworn this day the 11th of September 2006 in Cambridge, England

Sworn before me

________________________________

A SOLICITOR/ Commissioner for Oaths

________________________________

Suzon Forscey-Moore B.A., LL.M.