Neelu’s connection to Dr Akena Adoko

Many thanks to our reader JW for pointing this one out: it seems that for some years, Neelu had a long-standing relationship with a Dr Akena Adoko, a Ugandan gentleman with a strange and disturbing history.

According to his 2010 obituary in the Ugandan  Daily Monitor, Dr Adoko was “the independence-era spy chief who may have played an inadvertent role in the final ascendance of Idi Amin”. Quite an assertion!

The obituary claims that Dr Adoko

…secretly planned to topple Obote but was upstaged by Amin. According to this account, as told to Mr Kalyegira by Erisa Kanagwa, Dr Adoko, backed by British intelligence, was let down by a careless leak that allowed Amin to stage his own coup, fearing that Dr Adoko’s rise would herald a purge of certain elements in the military. “Amin’s was in fact a counter-coup,” Mr Kalyegira wrote. “This extraordinary new information, provided and verified by Kanagwa, indicates that Akena Adoko, Obote’s cousin and head of the GSU, had planned to overthrow Obote in a coup backed by the British.”

Certainly, President Milton Obote’s secret police, the “General Service Unit”, were responsible for many human rights abuses and cruelties in Uganda; Dr Adoko served as first head of that organisation, which “reported on suspected subversives”.

Dr Adoko’s adventures did not cease when he left Uganda after the rise of Idi Amin. He began practicing law in London in the early 1970s, but ultimately became the second name on the infamous list of Vexatious Litigants (Sabine and Belinda’s friend Terence Ewing occupies a place on the same list).

It’s worth reading the 2004 judgement on how Dr Adoko earned that honour, if only to appreciate the eye-wateringly long list of offences and missteps that brought him there.

As for Dr Adoko’s prowess as a lawyer…

On the website adoko.altervista.org, a few of his cases stand out:

a) In Adoko vs. Jemal, Curtis J described some of Dr Adoko’s arguments as “manifest nonsense.” He went on to say, “In my judgment, there is no genuine excuse for being out of time in this case. I regret to say that I find Dr Adoko, though extremely courteous, confused in his mind and, as I say, there is a lack of frankness, as the respondent has complained about. In those circumstances I unhesitatingly refuse to grant the application for …. “

b) Coroner Dr Elizabeth Stearns was sufficiently unimpressed with Dr Adoko to refuse him leave to represent Ms Berry and family in her court during the inquest held on the 11th and 12 September 2001 into the circumstances surrounding the death of baby Sunaina Chaudhari. …

d) In Dr Akena Adoko vs. The Law Society, it transpired that after his return to the UK from practicing in Uganda and Tanzania, Dr Adoko sought to become a solicitor. The Law Society refused to let him do so unless he passed their Professional Conduct and Account examination as he did not have 8 years’ experience of practice in England and Wales which, at that time, was a requirement laid down by the Law Society in their guidelines as a pre-condition to exempting barristers from taking that examination. Despite his claims that his international experience should be sufficient to exempt him from this examination, Dr Adoko was obliged to sit the examination. His results were in the range 40% – 44%.

How did Neelu become acquainted with Dr Adoko?

As with many things in Neelu’s life, the answer takes us back to the very sad death of her niece, Sunaina, from a congenital disorder. According to a 2004 judgement in the High Court of Justice, it happened like this:

22. In paragraph 2 of section 1 [Dr Rita Pal] describes herself as a practicing doctor and a writer/columnist and a human rights campaigner. She has founded and edited a website called http://www.nhs-exposed.com. In paragraph 3 she states that on occasions her colleagues and her are asked by patients to investigate potential or ongoing complaints against one or more branches of the Health Service. Having examined the material, independent opinion on the standard of care is, it is said, provided. “… [T]he service is provided free of charge and, on the understanding that our findings would be fair, unbiased and firmly based on scientific evidence.”

23. Dr Pal claims to have assisted a number of families thereby to obtain justice. She notes that if the families are not happy with the opinion they “cease contact” and “indeed develop an antagonism towards us.”

24. In the beginning of the year 2001, so paragraph 4 states, Miss Neelu Berry approached Dr Pal and her colleagues regarding the death of her niece, Sunania Chaudhuri. In paragraph 5 it is stated that it was Miss Berry’s belief that Sunania had been murdered. Paragraph 5 continues: “Over a period of several weeks we examined approximately 2000 pages of medical notes and other documentary evidence, and carried out extensive background research.”
The paragraph goes on to state that “although there were aspects of Sunania’s care that left something to be desired” “there was no scientific evidence to support” the suspicions of murder. “The outcome of the inquest also stated natural causes.” Dr Pal describes the case as very time consuming and one of the most difficult and demanding cases she had ever done.

25. Paragraph 6 refers to a long and detailed series of emails attempting to explain “our findings to Miss Berry.” “Eventually Miss Berry appeared to accept our conclusions and asked me for advice regarding lawyers who might represent her.” Paragraph 6 continues:”I suggested that she contacted a number of firms, and also informed her that I had heard that Dr Adoko had a good reputation as a barrister.” She knew him, so paragraph 6 states, only by reputation and she was “unaware that he had undergone disciplinary proceedings in 1997 and had become voluntarily disbarred shortly before the result of these proceedings was implemented.”

26. Paragraph 7 states that Miss Berry contacted Dr Adoko in May 2001 and that “it was decided that we should prepare a medical report for him to use as a basis for his legal report.” Dr Pal took three weeks out of work and with the help of a consultant paediatrician produced a final draft report in excess of a 100 pages.

27. Paragraph 8 refers to a report prepared by Dr Adoko which, so it appears, reached conclusions different to those reached by Dr Pal, being conclusions which caused her great concern as being “scientifically incorrect”. She states that she began to fear that “our report will be distorted to support Dr Adoko’s suppositions.” In paragraph 9 she states that she felt that such distortion would be totally unacceptable. She “offered the family a compromise; I would either send the report directly to the coroner, or I would withdraw it altogether.”

28. Paragraph 9 continues:”My fears were in no way allayed when Dr Adoko began sending me harassing emails likening me to ‘Hitler, Amin, and Musolini rolled into one’, and accusing me of fraudulent concealment and perverting the course of justice by refusing to provide a copy of the report.”

29. These harassing emails were copied to Miss Berry and third parties. Paragraph 9 continues: “Dr Adoko’s harassment became so troublesome to me that I felt obliged to complain to the police, after which he agreed not to contact me again.”

So basically, Dr Adoko helped Neelu nurture the early stages of her paranoid delusion that her niece had been mistreated by the hospital where she died. Later this “malpractice” allegation would morph into “murder”, and with the advent of the Hampstead hoax it would be amended to “Satanic ritual abuse and murder”, with side trips into body part harvesting.

On a recent Facebook post, Neelu made an oblique reference to Dr Adoko, whom she sometimes refers to as a father figure:

neelu-re-adoko-2016-10-31

When she mentions “two late dads…one author of the book The Most Corrupt British Judges“, she’s talking about Dr Adoko, who did write a book by that name: in fact, you can read his own “executive summary” of the book, which sounds…interesting.

Actually, it sounds a lot like some of the arrant nonsense that currently spews forth from Neelu’s mouth. There’s a lot of perverting of justice and remedies sought and that sort of thing, and of course the entire legal system conspired against poor Dr Adoko to deprive him of his rightful place as a lawyer, yadda yadda blah blah.

So while it seems unlikely that Dr Adoko was Neelu’s “dad” in any normal sense of the word, it’s quite possible that she was inspired by Dr Adoko, and so felt a particular closeness to him. As with many of Neelu’s friends and influencers (Sabine and Belinda, we’re looking at you), this seems like a less than wise choice.

dr-adoko

62 thoughts on “Neelu’s connection to Dr Akena Adoko

  1. I think Dr. Rita Pal has some issues herself with the Medical profession and is known as a “whistle blower”. She has produced several petitions regarding Medical matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for posting this EC – it shows that Neelu Berry has behaved in a focused and destructive way for nearly two decades. Its without doubt that her extreme behaviour has caused misery to others.

    There can be no doubt that Sabine McNeil and Belinda Mckenzie exploited Neelu’s obsessive behaviour to try to promote their own causes. As has Angie Power Disney in recent months.

    Hopefully they will all be brought to task.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. NOTE: NEELU BERRY AND NEELU CHAUDHARI are the SAME person….

    From: The Pharmaceutical Journal 1 MAR 2010

    Ilford pharmacist who harassed and made false allegations against fellow professionals struck off

    A pharmacist who failed to adhere to acceptable standards of conduct,and who caused mental suffering and anguish to fellow healthcare professionals, has had her name removed from the Register by order of the Disciplinary Committee

    A pharmacist who failed to adhere to acceptable standards of conduct, and who caused mental suffering and anguish to fellow healthcare professionals, has had her name removed from the Register by order of the Disciplinary Committee.

    The case of Neelu Chaudhari, of Ilford, Essex, was heard by the committee on 14 and 15 October 2009, following a resumed Statutory Committee inquiry. She was facing allegations of misconduct arising from her actions following the death of her baby niece at King George Hospital, Ilford, on 26 August 2000.

    Miss Chaudhari was not present at the hearing and was not represented.

    The committee heard that the baby had suffered several medical complications, including serious congenital abnormalities. There had been a diagnosis of Trisomy 18, or Edward’s syndrome, the prognosis for which is poor with a mortality rate of 98 per cent in the first year of life. The baby had died aged three months.

    Mrs Chaudhari’s alleged misconduct arose after a rift developed between the team treating the baby and the family, who believed the baby was not being treated properly. This had reached a stage such that the baby’s mother would barricade herself in the hospital room, impeding ready access of the care team.

    Emergency protection order

    The hospital trust had then applied for an emergency protection order, which was granted, giving the trust parental responsibility for the child, preventing the child from being removed from the hospital and enabling the trust to regulate parental access. Mrs Chaudhari was a named respondent in the order and was excluded from contact with the baby. The family sought to appeal the emergency protection order but the baby died during the course of the hearing.

    Thereafter, the family had become convinced that there had been a conspiracy by the care team to exclude the parents so that the baby could be killed, possibly for body parts, and that there had been a subsequent cover up. They believed that five Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors had been part of a broader conspiracy to murder the child. They believed that the baby had been given overdoses of ranitidine and potassium chlorate in an attempt to kill her and that her oxygen supply had been manipulated in order to harm her.

    After the subsequent autopsy, when organs were removed, the family believed that the purpose of the conspiracy was to kill the child to obtain human organs. They then made an allegation of murder to the police, who commenced an investigation.

    All subsequent reports, and a jury at an inquest in September 2001, confirmed that the baby had died of natural causes as a result of having Edward’s syndrome. The police report concluded the same. However none of these findings changed the family’s mind and they began a campaign, as they saw it, to expose the conspiracy.

    Among the family’s actions was to make formal complaints against two hospital pharmacists who had dispensed ranitidine and potassium chlorate while the baby was in hospital. It was when the Royal Pharmaceutical Society became aware of this that it began to investigate Miss Chaudhari’s conduct because it was concerned about the civil orders against her.

    The Society alleged that Miss Chaudhari published material on websites, demonstrated on hospital premises and distributed leaflets claiming that her niece had been murdered by NHS doctors. In July 2002, these actions had been made subject to an ex parte injunction not to harass or assault hospital staff and, in August 2002, not to enter or obstruct the trust’s hospitals.

    Thereafter it was alleged that Miss Chaudhari began demonstrating around Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, and at the home of a GOSH doctor alleging murder, and publishing on websites allegations of murder and that organs had been removed.

    In October 2003, she gave undertakings in the High Court in a consent order about these and other matters but, in March 2004, the High Court found that some of the undertakings had been breached, including the fact that there had been additional harassment.

    In April 2004, the High Court issued as permanent restraining and mandatory order against Miss Chaudhari.

    The Society alleged that Miss Chaudhari’s actions were breaches of Key Responsibility 3 (KR3) of the Code of Ethics for Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians, namely, “Show respect for others”, and as such she was unfit to practise as a pharmacist.

    Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (John Burrow), said that the committee had taken regard of the wording in KR3. It stated: “Pharmacists must ensure that they behave with integrity and probity, adhere to accepted standards of personal and professional conduct and do not engage in any behaviour or activity likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.”

    The committee accepted that publishing allegations on a website, demonstrating on hospital grounds and distributing leaflets alleging murder by NHS doctors was in breach of KR3, despite the circumstances of the death and despite Miss Chaudhari’s beliefs in respect of it, the chairman said.

    Serious misconduct

    “We considered whether it constituted serious misconduct. We noted it involved very serious allegations against fellow health professionals by Miss Chaudhari, herself a healthcare professional,” he said. The committee also noted that a number of expert reports had been published, none of which gave any support to the allegations being made by Miss Chaudhari. Indeed, they refuted them.

    “In the fact of these matters we concluded that Miss Chaudhari, a trained healthcare professional, should not have disseminated these very serious allegations against fellow healthcare professionals. We concluded that this was the case despite the traumatic events surrounding the death of [the baby] and her beliefs relating to them. We accepted that [this] was serious misconduct,” the chairman said.

    He added: “There was a substantial body of independent evidence which should have caused Miss Chaudhari to be much more restrained in her behaviour. For her to ignore these matters and behave in such a way as to bring down an injunction upon herself was, in our view, a serious matter. We accepted that this was serious misconduct.”

    The chairman then turned to allegations that Miss Chaudhari had breached undertakings that she had given to the High Court, which he said was a very serious matter. Mrs Chaudhari “was aware of the serious effect her conduct was having … because it had been set out in earlier proceedings, yet she opted to continue her actions. To repeat the prohibited conduct and further harass the claimants in our view substantially exacerbated the situation. … In our judgement the conduct represented a serious breach of KR3 and constituted serious misconduct. Therefore we accepted that the matters set out in the particulars of misconduct, and found proved, individually and collectively rendered Miss Chaudhari unfit to be on the Register,” he said.

    The chairman then turned to the question of sanction. He said that there were a number of findings in the civil jurisdiction against Miss Chaudhari, including an emergency protection order, an injunction, a breach of undertakings in the High Court and the imposition of a restraining order.

    Furthermore, her conduct had been adjudged in the High Court as constituting harassment within the meaning of the Harassment Act 1997. Aggravating features were the strength of the allegations made against fellow health professionals, including murder, and that these allegations were posted on a number of websites providing general access throughout the world.

    The chairman said that a possible mitigating factor was that Miss Chaudhari did actually believe the allegations she was making. “However, this matter must be set against the many reports, findings, investigations and court proceedings which have refuted these beliefs and which she continues to ignore.”

    Another possible mitigating factor was the fact that there was no potential harm to patients since it did not directly concern Miss Chaudhari’s immediate contact with patients. But set against that was the fact that substantial emotional damage was caused to the doctors and health professionals involved, said the chairman.

    Future risk

    The committee considered whether an appropriate sanction might be a reprimand. However, it concluded that there was a future risk that Miss Chaudhari would repeat her actions in this matter. The chairman said: “While it is the case that there is a permanent restraining and mandatory order in place against Miss Chaudhari, it is correct that there were breaches of earlier undertakings and there have already been two attempts to quash the restraining order.”

    The committee also noted that it was clear that Miss Chaudhari still maintained her views concerning the murder and conspiracy allegations, having repeated them as recently as April 2009. The committee concluded that there was a continuing risk of repetition of Miss Chaudhari’s misconduct and that she had inadequate insight into it.

    The chairman said that the committee had found 11 breaches of KR3 that amounted to serious professional misconduct and that a reprimand was therefore not an appropriate sanction.

    Ordering her removal from the Register, the chairman concluded: “Miss Chaudhari’s involvement in perpetuating, over a long period, extreme allegations against fellow healthcare professionals in the face of an overwhelming body of independent evidence to the contrary, the fact that she has brought down on herself civil injunctions and had breached undertakings given to the High Court would, in our view, undermine public confidence if she were allowed to practise as a pharmacist.

    She has breached in several respects Key Responsibility 3, which is a fundamental tenet of the profession of pharmacy, and has failed to have regard to legal constraints imposed by civil courts and has failed to adhere to accepted standards of conduct. She has caused mental suffering and harassment to fellow health care professionals and there is a continuing risk that she will repeat this misconduct. In our view, the just, fair, necessary and proportionate sanction is removal.”

    Since the proceedings were begun under Statutory Committee rules, Mrs Chaudhari had three months during which to appeal against the committee’s decision.

    Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal, Vol. 284, p222 | URI: 11000053

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, Neelu goes by a variety of names: Lou Lotus, Ved Chaudhari, Neelu Chaudhari, Neelu Berry, Princess Lotus4U…the list goes on. Whichever name she uses, though, she’s both mad and malicious.

      Like

        • Usually it is but there are unisex variants like Vedas – maybe she is calling herself Vedas but shortens it to Ved’. Apparently is means wisdom [tries to keep a straight face].

          Liked by 1 person

        • There’s no chance Neelu is going to stop.

          If she’s been at this for at least 15 years then she is just going to carry on as before.

          Only way she will STOP is if she is locked up either in Prison of a Mental Ward.

          Makes me wonder if she didn’t lead Sabine astray rather than Belinda and Sabine using Neelu.

          Liked by 1 person

          • No, Belinda has all her marbles and is as devious a cow as ever existed. Sabine is a deep-fried stoner, fantasist, crook and all the rest of it; but still knows which way is up. Neelu’s brain is ‘gone’ thanks to all her own ‘cookery’. As vicious and harmful as she is, that’s really down to a level of mental illness than means she shouldn’t really be walking the streets!

            Liked by 2 people

  4. At least those she accused got their remedy.

    Sadly for Neelu she was obviously deteriorating mentally before the baby died and the death triggered even more mental instability. But the general public and health professionals should not have to suffer because of her mental condition.

    She has demonstrated no respect for the law even while demanding adherence to law. She needs a spell in a secure unit for her safety and the public safety.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. So Stoopid Ruperts feeling the pinch holed up in old blighty.Seems the diet of Jaffa cakes and HP sauce is starting to take its toll as is the apparently forced viewing of Eastenders which must be part of his sentence.Personally I am all for Dot popping round and and giving him an earfull.

    The gist of this collage of fellow prize idiots is..well I am not entirely sure really but unsurprisingly Rupert begs for “continued support in my crusade” and gives the link to his GOFUNDME account.

    Poor bugger eh? lol

    Like

    • Highlights from Kristie’s latest comedy:

      “If you have a fireplace in your home, simply throw salt on the fire, particularly pure sea salt. Try Himalayan salt if you have some.”

      “Back in 1999 (before I could see auras or feel energy) a mage taught me a cool trick.”

      “It is our volitional strength, carried into incandescence and passed through energetic levels, that cause events to be modified.”

      “Another advantage of using those Himalayan Salt Lamps during magic work is that they help you avoid falling into extremes and becoming destabilized by negative forces. Such forces, whether they come from envious attacks by others or the shameful thoughts that you hide from yourself, can be effectively neutralized by the power of salt.”

      “In the names of my ancestors, my gods, and myself, I call upon thee, oh creatures of Earth and Water. Come forth, cleanse ‘name of target’ of all evil and alien magicks, and restore them (me, it) to balance and health. By our wills combined, so mote it be.”

      “I thank thee, oh creatures of Earth and Water, in the name of myself, my gods, and my ancestors. Be released to your homes, doing no harm on your way, and return to me with glad hearts when next you are summoned. By our wills combined, so mote it be.”

      “There is also another effective way of breaking a spell or curse and that is of course, the mirror.”

      https://dearmandoeshampstead.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/mirror-mirror-a-halloween-guide-to-breaking-spells

      Liked by 1 person

      • Blithering idiot obviously hasnt got a clue.When I was last in the Himalayas a mage showed me how it is possible to kill a yak grazing on the other side of the mountain.The involves understanding firstly why such knowledge must never be put into practice.The chap had never seen a mirror in his life.

        Like

      • Now hang on one cotton pickin’ minute. Aren’t WE supposed to be witches? Aren’t WE supposed to be familiar with magic and the dark arts? (I had my tarot read when I was 15 – does that count?) Well, eye of newt and toe of frog and all that…..I thought this woman was supposed to be a Christian and here she is suggesting all those who feel afflicted throw salt on the fire. These people will NEVER cease to amaze me.
        The above is totally taking the piss to a new level and I have a renewed desire to hit out with a sock full of horse manure. DUCK KRISTIE! DUCK!

        Liked by 2 people

  6. In view of the Court Orders against Neelu, her comments at 6.05 in the video below are of course interesting in the context of the Court order against her.

    “…And it was meant to be my bail return date. I was meant to be going to Colindale police station. I got an email yesterday at 2pm from DC Steve Martin to say that he’d not received enough information to take the case forward…er…which means that there is…I mean, they haven’t brought any charges against me.

    He tried to interview me to…hoping that I would incriminate myself but I told him…He said, you know, said, ‘Why have you published this picture of this baby?’ And I said, ‘It’s my niece, you know, and I’m still trying to get justice…’”

    The court order can be read here: http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ctorder.txt

    In particular:

    “PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER

    4. The Defendants and each of them must not hereafter do or attempt to do the
    following acts or any of them, without the permission of the Court:-

    (1) make, publish or cause or permit to be published or continue to be published
    (whether on any Internet web-site, in any leaflet, = placard, pamphlet, book or
    article, or otherwise in writing or in other permanent form, or orally) any
    allegations, statements, representations or assertions to the effect that:

    (a) all or any of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Claimants conspired
    with each other and/or with doctors and nursing staff at King George’s Hospital,
    Ilford, Essex to murder or unlawfully kill Sunaina Chaudhari (“Sunaina”), in
    order to obtain her organs for research, and/or to conceal an alleged misdiagnosis
    of Edward’s Syndrome, and/or to prevent a court hearing, and/or for any other
    reason;

    (b) Sunaina was murdered or unlawfully killed in furtherance of the conspiracy
    set out in (a) above on or about 26th October 2000;

    (c) the Claimants, or any of them, conspired together to remove Sunaina’s organs
    in advance of any post-mortem examination, in order to conceal evidence of murder,
    and/or for research purposes;

    (d) in furtherance of the conspiracy set out in (c) above, the Fifth Claimant:

    (i) removed organs from Sunaina’s body before the post-mortem conducted by him
    on 30th October 2000; and

    (ii) faked the post-mortem on 30th October 2000, and produced a false post-mortem
    report, in which he dishonestly concluded that Sunaina died from natural causes;

    (e) the Claimants, or any of them, concealed the crime of Sunaina’s murder, and/or
    her unlawful killing;

    (f) that the Claimants, or any of them, have subsequently, in documents submitted
    to the High Court, admitted that there is substance to all or any of the above
    allegations;

    or any further or other allegations, statements, representations or assertions to
    a similar effect (defined and referred to elsewhere in this Order as “the offending
    allegations”);

    (2) post or publish, or cause, permit or procure to be posted or published on any
    website or web page on the Internet or World Wide Web, whether under their control,
    or under the control of any third party, any of the offending allegations, or further
    or other allegations to similar effect;

    (3) molest, threaten or otherwise interfere with the Claimants or any of them;

    (4) knowingly approach within 100 yards of the home address of any of the Claimants;

    (5) come onto or remain or trespass on the land owned by Great Ormond Street Hospital
    NHS Trust at Great Ormond Street, London WC1N other than by prior written appointment;

    (6) pursue any other course of conduct which is calculated or likely to harass the
    Claimants or any of them.”

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dear God,

        Have you got a patron saint for pretentious,plagiarizing arseholes who steal from orphanages and stuff? If not,well there bloody market for one down here I can tell you that much.

        Yours faithfully

        Like

We welcome comments!

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s