Edward Ellis: The final straw?

The last time we saw Neelu Berry, she was departing the public gallery at Sabine McNeill’s trial, making good speed just ahead of the court officer. Until that time, we had not realised that Neelu is actually part jackrabbit. When that woman is motivated, she can travel!

Since then she has kept a relatively low profile. However, readers will recall that over the summer, Neelu lost possession of her house by virtue of failing to keep up her mortgage payments. In the weeks following the house’s repossession and sale at auction, Neelu continued to stalk her former home, driving past and filming herself, while keeping up a running commentary about the injustice of it all. As one does.

We recently ran across this document, dated last September, which indicated Neelu’s intention to sue the Co-operative Bank, former holders of her mortgage, for £1,000,000:

While Neelu’s lawsuit plans have not yet come to fruition (and may indeed have been forgotten), something about the floridly psychotic unusual turns of phrase contained therein jogged our memory. Terms such as “Unfitness Case(s)”, “Case Management Sabotage Frauds”, “Corruption Proof”, and of course the ubiquitous “Remedies”….

Was it not just the other day we’d seen references to similarly odd linguistic quirks?

Awodiya v HM Revenue and Customs

This written judgment by the Hon. Mr Justice Turner concerns a relatively mundane dispute between two parents and HMRC over the right to continue to receive Child Tax Credit payments.

It’s only under the section titled “Remaining Matters” that things take a distinct turn for the Neelu-esque.

In fact, it seems that a possible exacerbating factor in what seems like an entirely avoidable dispute might have come in the form of Edward W. Ellis, Equity Lawyer.

According to Turner J,

In presenting their case before me, the claimants were articulate, courteous and restrained. They accepted that a number of collateral complaints which they had raised were not suitable for determination before me. Their oral presentation was, however, at odds with the confrontational tone and inordinate length of their written evidence and submissions.

For example, in their joint witness statement, appended to and served in support of their application before me, the claimants sought the following redress:

“THE CORRUPTION REMEDY
The Corruption Remedy Process got Judicial Office Unfitness Cases in Parliament. Top Judges made Protection Fraud demands, corrupt MPs made Protection Fraud Promises, top Judges were satisfied they were credible promises. They ignored the Judicial Office Unfitness Cases and Conflict Disqualifications, committed Conflict Qualification Frauds to keep control of cases, and committed Court Frauds for State Officers and demanded Discredit Frauds and Intimidation Frauds against the Unfitness Case Witnesses. The result is Fraud Proof for Citizens, Crown and Parliament against organised criminals, state officers and Law Court Judges including the Unfitness Case Defendants.
Citizens Mr Franklin Awodiya and Mrs Victoria Awodiya are Special Witnesses involved in the Remedy Process. The hearing of Claim: CO/4029/2108 on 17/12/18 has been used for Protection Notice to the Parliament as it got Criminal Conspiracy Proofs against the Administrative Court in Manchester and the defendant, HMRC who has been suing false representation and Witness Intimidation Frauds, Financial Ruin Frauds, Misuse of Personal Data in an improper collusion with corrupt officers within other government agencies. The Remedy Process Files are kept by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Citizens, Crown and Lord Bishops.
The hearing failed to get Remedy Co-operation but instead got Hearing Notification and Exclusion Frauds, Natural Justice Denial Frauds and Protection Breach Contempt Fraud from High Court Judge. Subsequent hearing outcomes will be relevant evidence for Remedy Process and Fraud Appeals.
On 17/12/18, the citizens served Remedy Process + Office Unfitness Cases + Protection Breach Contempt Fraud Investigation notice (signed criminal witness statement) on Honourable Mrs Justice Farbey via the Admin Court. Email.
The Citizens and The Remedy Process require the Court Audio Record / Transcript of the hearing of 17/12/18 as they serve as Fraud Proof for the Citizens, Crown and Parliament against defendant and the High Court Judge.
The Remedy Process Co-operation, Standard Evidence Offers and Corruption Damage Statements entitle Citizens Mr and Mrs Awodiya to:
• Remedy Process Citizen Protection Rights from the Crown and Parliament.
• Remedy only jurisdiction limits for the citizens against all inferior jurisdictions of the state, professional authorities and lower courts including the High Court.
• Use of conflict powers by inferior jurisdiction against the citizens is Protection Breach Contempt of Superior Jurisdictions.”

Did you read all of that? Don’t worry, neither did we.

In fact, it’s somewhat reassuring that Turner J was as much in the dark as any of us. Stating that he is “in no doubt that the claimants have no more idea of what this is supposed to mean” than he does, he explains that this “impenetrable screed” emerges from the imagination of Edward W. Ellis.

As we have noted here previously, Ellis is a former solicitor who was suspended indefinitely from the Roll of Solicitors in 2006, and currently styles himself “Equity Lawyer”. According to his own definition, “An Equity Lawyer is anyone who has the expertise and commitment to get Proof Sets that meet the Corruption Remedy Proof Standard, and knows what to do with it”.

Because of course it is.

On February 22 2018, in a judgment which was unreported at the time, but was quoted with approval in the judgment of Moylan LJ in Ellis v Ministry of Justice, May J described Ellis thus:

“1. (Mr Ellis) has a fully formed and apparently internally consistent belief system focused on corruption. He believes that some – perhaps all – previous Prime Ministers, all judges and magistrates, the Government Legal Service and Ministry of Justice together with “State officers”, by which I took him to mean police and court staff, and probably all sorts of other people and institutions, are corrupt and that the decisions they make are, without exception, fraudulent; hence his designation of judicial decisions as “frauds”: for instance, an “evidence irrelevance fraud” when I refused to consider a sheaf of documents he handed up as being of no relevance to the issues I had to decide on this application, or a “jurisdiction fraud” when I determined that I did have jurisdiction to hear the application. The list goes on.

2. These beliefs would have just been sad had Mr Ellis not acted upon them or if his “philosophy” (his word) had not attracted adherents. But he has acted, unceasingly and voraciously over many years, and persons with grievances against the justice system have been attracted and recruited. The result is that claim forms, application notices, appeals are issued and documents purportedly filed or served at various courts, bearing all the hallmarks of Mr Ellis’s unmistakable drafting. These are prolix, tendentious, mostly incomprehensible screeds, making the same assertions of fraud and corruption again and again.

3. Consistent with his activity in drafting and promoting the issue of claims, Mr Ellis would also attend hearings in courts and tribunals with litigants to conduct cases on their behalf, using the occasions to repeat in oral representation the turgid, inchoate passages made in documentary form. Increasing and unwelcome familiarly with Mr Ellis in the Masters Office led Senior Master Fontaine to issue her order of 8 March 2016.”

The 2016 order of Senior Master Fontaine restrains Ellis from issuing claims on others’ behalf as well as from assisting others to bring claims, in contravention of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Readers might recall that Ellis was convicted of contempt of court following a hearing last February, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment suspended for a year. The court also imposed a general civil restraint order, preventing him from issuing any claim in the High Court or County Court for a period of two years.

Turner J comments:

It is clear that Mr Ellis remains unable to contain his enthusiasm for promoting his unorthodox views through deliberate interference in the claims of others. His influence in the case before me has been characteristically baleful.

Turner J notes that even in the case before him, Ellis had “purported to make further submissions”, which he had sent to the Court as well as to more than 100 recipients, and in which he took direct aim at Turner J:

2.9. On 6th November 2017 High Court Justice Mr Turner sat for the Corruption Claim HQ16X00733 Contempt Trial of Equity Lawyer Mr Ellis. The Royal Courts Building Exclusion Fraud stopped the Equity Lawyer attending the Trial Event. High Court Justice Mr Turner used the Appearance failure for a No Appearance Finding Fraud and In Absence Trial Fraud. He wanted a Secret Trial and used a Public Gallery Clearance Order to get it. Citizen Ms Berry was a few minutes late. She found the Witnesses outside the Court Room. They told her about the Public Gallery Clearance Order. She walked into the Court Room and found the In Absence Trial in progress. She told the Witness to take Public Gallery Seats and gave Oral Notice of the Exclusion Fraud. It got a Trial Adjournment while a Security Guard went to get the Equity Lawyer. He broke the confidence of High Court Justice Mr Turner to complete the Trial Frauds that day. The case got Trial Fraud Proof and Appeal Fraud Proof that completed the Criminal Conspiracy Proof set against Corruption Controllers. On 12th June 2018 it was used for Notice to parliament of a Judicial Office Unfitness Case against High Court Justice Mr Turner and All Other Relevant Judges.

Turner J was less than amused, and comments:

It is unacceptable for anyone repeatedly and contumeliously to appropriate and then subvert the claims of others and thereafter abuse the court process by deploying litigation, in which he has no legitimate interest, as a tool to promote his own political agenda. The resources of the court are limited and Mr Ellis’ interventions are seriously prejudicial to achieving fairness and justice in the various civil claims in which he continues to seek to meddle.

I will be referring the papers in this matter to the Attorney General.

(Don’t worry, we had to look up “contumeliously” too.)

Is this the end of the line for Ellis’ continual flouting of the orders against him? We shall continue to watch with interest.