Embedded Files
From: "Sylvester, Peter (Civil Appeals)"
<peter.sylvester2@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: 14 March 2011 15:33:40 GMT
To: "'mailto:mira.makar@btinternet.com'" <mailto:mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: 2009/1711
Dear Mira
Further to our conversation this morning, it is with great regret that I have been unable to track down any more bundles relating to your case.
That being the case, I will be happy to allow you or a named representative to use our photocopying facility
to make an additional copy of your bundles.
Please let me know your position at the earliest opportunity.
Kind regards
Peter
Mr Peter Sylvester
Team Leader of Associates
(Chief Associate)
Civil Appeals Office
Royal Courts of Justice
tel: 020 7073 4827
fax: 020 7947 6751
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
allcopies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: "Mira Makar" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
To: "APPEALCOURT" <civilappeals.listing@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>; civilappeals.cmsA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; "Mick Allen" <mick.allen@sfo.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: mark.brodrick@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; amy.welch@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; geoff.denman@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; "Paul Wilkins" <paul.wilkins@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; john.hebden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
"Mira Makar User" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, 1 Aug, 14 At 20:05
Subject: 14 08 01: MRS SHARON WALKER REJECTION OF THREAT (31.7.14) TO DESTROY EVIDENCE AFTER COURT CLOSES 1 AUG 14. 2009/1711
Fwd: 14 07 31- RESPONSE TO MRS WALKER, ASSOCIATES, THREAT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE 16:42
Fwd: 2009/1711 STAY GOLDRING LJ Oct 09, PERMISSION Jackson LJ Feb 10-
MM v decision HH Richard Seymour QC (17.7.09), 7 August 2009
1 August 2014
COURT OF APPEAL ASSOCIATES/MRS SHARON WALKER
Please see attached.
Many thanks
Mira Makar
Begin forwarded message:
From: Civil Appeals - Associates <civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: 31 July 2014 18:51:47 BST
To: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: 14 07 31- RESPONSE TO MRS WALKER, ASSOCIATES, THREAT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE 16:42 Fwd: 2009/1711 STAY GOLDRING LJ Oct 09, PERMISSION Jackson LJ Feb 10- MM v decision HH Richard Seymour QC (17.7.09), 7 August 2009
Reply-To: noreply-civilappeals <noreply-.civilappeals@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Your message to Civil Appeals - Associates has been received by the court and will be dealt with as soon as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated Delivery Response. Please do NOT reply to this email, it will NOT be viewed.This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention ofthe addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may beread at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss)
00 44 (0)7768 610071
Christos Anesti!.
www.servinglondon.com
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13
From: "Mira Makar" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
To: geoff.denman@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
"Mick Allen" <mick.allen@sfo.gsi.gov.uk>;
civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
civilappeals.cmsA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
"APPEALCOURT" <civilappeals.listing@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: amy.welch@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
mark.brodrick@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
"Paul Wilkins" <paul.wilkins@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
john.hebden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
"Mira Makar User" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 Jul, 14 At 18:45
Subject: 14 07 31- RESPONSE TO MRS WALKER, ASSOCIATES, THREAT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE 16:42 Fwd: 2009/1711 STAY GOLDRING LJ Oct 09, PERMISSION Jackson LJ Feb 10- MM v decision HH Richard Seymour QC (17.7.09), 7 August 2009
Dear Mr Denman
I have received a telephone call from Mrs Walker this afternoon at 16.42. I thanked her for calling and informed her I sought confirmation that the two communications had been safely received and that the EVIDENCE of the COURT OF APPEAL ASSOCIATES, receipted by the REGISTRY on 2 APRIL 2012 having been discovered in March 2011, was back in safe custody as before you left your post.
Mrs Walker confirmed that both had been received. I said I was relieved. She proceeded to say that "IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, WE CANNOT KEEP THEM". The inference was that Mrs Walker was proceeding to authorize the destruction of crime evidence by those with no standing who got in by paying £200 on 5 March 2010 and forged evidence to secure an "embargo'ed judgment" that could never be delivered.
I informed Mrs Walker this is not a matter that could be authorised by her. I said that there was no point in further dialogue as I could not go along with her intentions to destroy this evidence. I informed her that I was terminating the call so that we would not fall out. If Mrs Walker cannot authorize destruction of crime evidence, then for certain I cannot tell her "it is OK, go ahead."
Mrs Walker does not have the authority to destroy crime evidence. If the court of appeal finally wishes to bring some orderliness to these matters then it will have to contact me with a suggestion.
If Mrs Walker does proceed this is called MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, as well as action to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. Anyone who authorises, wilfully permits, or does not actively stop such action is culpable of an offence and could be looking at a prison sentence.
Frankly I am astounded that your successor could take such an attitude. It also disturbs me, that Mrs Walker uses the telephone to say what she would not commit in writing that UNLESS I removed the evidence that belongs to the MoJ, that City of London police brought in as it must be dealt with by C of A judges, she was going to destroy it or permit or authorise it to be destroyed.
Mr Denman, I do not negotiate with people who threaten and never have done, indeed I cannot agree something outside my power: this evidence was wrongly posted out in September 2011 when it should not have been. I am not an insured storage facility for MoJ crime evidence, nor are City police unpaid couriers for HMCTS. In fact I have been so badly treated that SECURITY have advised me not to enter the premises as they cannot guarantee physical safety or efficient processing of my business.
I must ask you to make clear to Mrs Walker exactly what the position is. It was most unfortunate that when Mr Wilkins wrote he did not acknowledge my first letter which for anyone ought to have been enough: it was plain that this lettee was merely to re-run the earlier letter to keep a paper trail that I had been warned.
SHREDDING OF EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSOCIATES LETTER
It is a fact that the ASSOCIATES for whom Mrs Walker is now personally responsible did not warn me before Leveson LJ's bundle was destroyed on 16 February 2011, a fact I did not know until August 2011, when I was responsing to Sally Meacher's orders that I had to provide the evidence of what had happened INSIDE the C of A. You will recollect the fact that you were most upset and told staff within my ear shot that Sally Meacher was being naive to require me to investigate the computer records to which I had no access. I did not know until 2012 that Leveson LJ's files had been scanned to the shelf on 21 December 2010 or that the Chancellor's had disappeared.
During the summer the C of A discovered that she had lost my two preliminary issue files that should have gone to Richards LJ, my supervising judge in May/June 2010 and which may or may not have done. This was when she was issuing UNLESS Orders that the appeal would be dismissed without being heard UNLESS I put the final bundles in BEFORE the preliminary issue had been resolved; whether unidentified persons of no standing could be heard. DM Meacher did not inform me that £200 had been paid or who by: in essence UNLESS I accepted Catherine Elford, RPC, and those with them, I was not going to get to the Appeal Court despite Jackson LJ's permission.
That is not acceptable: you will recall your observation about the scanners and their ad hoc usage. How Mrs Walker expects to escape responsibility for such matters and yet purport to be responsible for the Associates is unexplained. Since then, the consequences have been the waste of the time of HOLDROYDE J; BURTON J; TEARE J; STEELE J; GLOSTER MRS J; COOKE J; KING J; RYDER J; HADDON CAVE J; SMITH J: RYDER J; EADY J; RAYMOND JACK J; MASTERS LESLIE, EYRE, FONTAINE, KAY, YOXELL, SM, WHITTAKER; REGISTRAR BRIGGS, DERRETT ( & ORS); CIRCUIT JUDGES; DISTRICT JUDGES; Senior Master Peter Hurst; DACU; the Official Solicitor; the Official Receiver; the Treasury Solicitor (brought in by the director of the SFO) and a barrage of others including the Jeresy courts, Bailiff and Jersey police, as well as Westminster police in addition to City police. SECURITY were involved from 23 December 2010, re-engaging in July 2012 at the request of judiciary, the day after police & SFO were asked for witness protection. Is this a court of law or a severely de-railed process? For certain NAO would want to know as it is committed to "HELPING THE NATION SPEND WISELY" - I cannot see that the events since 7 August 09 in the of A can be called "SPENDING WISELY".
I do not expect to live my life under threats as those of Mrs Walker, nor spend days or years in a state of terror. I am afraid you will have to deal with it, since you were running the Registry when the £200 was taken in on 5 March 2010, and nobody told me, and files as the APPEAL BUNDLE VOL 2 were lodged by Elford "as though" mine and got in without a bar code, which could have sent out an alert.
As you have known me for a number of years now, you will know that I do not do "BLAME" but "REPAIR".
UNLESS by 11 am Mrs Walker has sent me an email withdrawing her threat by telephone and confirming that she will not be issuing more threats to destroy crime evidence, I am afraid I shall have no choice but to ask the court to record the fact that she has made herself complicit with the wrongdoers in 2012 Folio 336, against whom default judgment was entered on 18 July 12, as they cannot defend. They rely on insurance and underwriting arrangements which, one presumes, Mrs Walker does not have. This record will join her in the action as complicit with creation and preservation of false judicial records, reliant on forgeries and theft, and destruction of evidence.
She has started her new job in a manner which is hostile to the Master of the Rolls and the C of A judges and UNLESS she changes her attitude and approach with immediate effect she is unlikely to survive in post.
In the meanwhile, you were ASSOCIATES' boss when the promise of proper preservation under LOCK & KEY was made, kindly ensure the ASSOCIATES promise is honoured. I do not accept your job shift means Mrs Walker can operate without handover or preserving the integrity of the judicial process on evidence as it was before 23 ay 2014 when she came on the scene from elsewhere apparently untrained in the responsibilities and seriousness of a post in the C of A.
SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
I am addressing this to Mick Allen, also, as Head of Intelligence at the SFO. The SFO intelligence unit confirmed to the QBD in a communication to Catherine Elford, RPC, that it was investigating RPC et al in April 2011, although unfortunately it did not attend the court itself. In May 2011 the MoJ through one of its Ministers again referred these matters to the SFO. HMCTS is part of the MoJ. It appears to me that to turn around now and destroy the evidence, some of which did not emerge until later in 2011 and 2012 from HMCTS, would be reckless in the extreme if not deliberate.
The SFO, like police, do not put highly skilled intelligence resource, into undoing the wrongdoings of other agencies including HMCTS. The evidence was receipted on 2 April 2012 by the C of A Registry and there is an accurate contemporaneous record of police attendance with detailed timings available and preserved. Amy Welsh is the witness. Mrs Walker has no authority to destroy what the Registry has receipted.
Nevertheless it is important that I provide the SFO with my evidence and that of the court officials that, as of 31 July 2014, the evidence relevant to the investigations they told the court via Catherine Elford they were carrying out in April 2011, is intact. If it is now destroyed, it will be necessary for those responsible for allowing this to happen to explain.
Finally I am making a report to-day to the National Audit Office that I am being threatened by court officials with the destruction of crime evidence which is the property of MoJ and relevant also to my civil relief and correction of false records in the public domain. The approach has led to massive wastage of public money not only in the courts, but on the part of prosecutors. If anyone allows the evidence to be destroyed, there will be very serious questions to be answered.
I look forward to the written confirmation from Mrs Walker by 11 am to morrow. If she refuses, kindly take it upon yourself, with the help of Amy Welsh and Mr Brodrick to find a lockable cupboard so this nonsense can be brought to an end. Amy signed for the files on 2.4.12, so I doubt she will want them destroyed, even if none of know the exact next step. Please arrange for someone to let me know what has happened to keep them safe. I record a loss of confidence in Mrs Walker and her embryonic stewardship of the important Associates of the Court of Appeal.
"PERMISSION" 24 August 2012, Richards LJ (granted 18.2.10 Jackson LJ)
For the record, I do not know who made up a permission that had been turned down by Richards LJ on 24 August 2012, the day HQ12XO3512 was issued (fatal to the Baker Tilly group). Permission was given on 18 February 2010, by Jackson LJ (public). Richards LJ is my supervising judge, who could not hear a permission. His directions in June 2010 were truncated and the whole provided in October 2010 when it was too late. This permission by Richards LJ was in the first letter which came from the Associates after Mrs Walker took over. Forgery of court records is a criminal offence. Mrs Walker is responsible on this occasion and must now consider her position regardless of the issue of the evidence. She is compromised, must recuse herself and cannot make the decision to destroy under the CIVIL SERVICE CODE, even were the evidence not crime evidence.
yours
Mira
Mira Makar MA FCA (MIss) trustee and executor
07768 610071
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Date: 31 July 2014 12:31:38 BST
To: "Wilkins, Paul" <paul.wilkins@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>, civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk,
civilappeals.cmsA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk,
APPEALCOURT <civilappeals.listing@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: john.hebden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk,
mark.brodrick@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk,
Mira Makar User <mira.makar@btinternet.com>,
amy.welch@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk, geoff.denman@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: 2009/1711 STAY GOLDRING LJ Oct 09, PERMISSION Jackson LJ Feb 10- MM v decision HH Richard Seymour QC (17.7.09), 7 August 2009
Dear Mr Wilkins
Thank you for your note and for communicating by email. This is much appreciated, especially as my case manager Mark Brown has left HMCTS and the electronic file may not record the need to communicate by email, as my existence has been nomadic since the start of 2008 when the terror campaign took up momentum, with the implicit death threats from Laurence Peter Longe, MD of what was the Baker Tilly business in June 2009. The blackmail monies were to be paid into Coutts Bank Strand reference LPL. The blackmail was executed through Catherine Elford (now Kewish) the person who used money from a Reynolds Porter Chamberlain bank account to pay £200 in the C of A on 5 March 2010, revealed by Peter Sylvester, Head of ASSOCIATES, on or around 26 August 2011.
On 28 July 2009, Semken told Richard Seymour QC, that there was a discretionary offshore trust of which I was beneficiary that paid lots of money to silks and that he could not see why he should not be paid too. The identity of a now deceased (12/09) member of my family was used, "as though" such a discretionary settlement existed. It did not and does not.
This had been a fiction created by Boodle Hatfield at the same time, when they succeeded in securing blackmail monies this time paid to the client monies account of Foot Anstey, at Lloyds Plymouth.
I attach both blackmail records. The Lloyds Plymouth was revealed by HMCTS in August 2012, by Circuit Judge Birtles, Mayors & City (where 2009/1711 started as 7MY03183), who retired in April 2014.
PLEASE NOTE THAT 2009/1711 RELATES TO ACTIVITY IN THE COURT WITHOUT CLAIM, DEFENCE OR COUNTERCLAIM. It got in on an "application to amend" in February 09, to include my PURPORTED CONSENT (which I had not given) to have a trial using stolen criminal evidence that was my property and that of the Companies Investigation Branch of the DTI, which had commissioned it. They by passed the Master, Master Leslie, acting senior master after Senior Master Whittaker's departure, who has said that these matters should have ended pre "trial" in June 09. Notionally it was a liability trial on which no money hung. Fortunately Richard Seymour QC found in my favour, although on paper he said I lost. Counsel says this is called "perverse" and properly does not require an APPEAL.
Master Leslie has marked as PRESERVED his files but says the C of A must look after its own, as it is two levels above him, and from 7 August 2009, that it where these matters have been.
Those who have contravened the STAY of Lord Goldring are liable to contempt proceedings. The STAY was granted on the grounds they were attempting to mimic a bankruptcy, so they would gain control through a "trustee in bankruptcy" of my properties, which they had used to underwrite the "expenses" of a transaction using the courts to stop HQ12XO3512 being issued & served. However it was, they did not succeed, and now the ASSOCIATES are seeing their attempts to cover.
MLS did the daily transcription of a 6 day sham trial in March 2008, and the second in June 2009. They are important witnesses to these events, and it is important the C of A staff do not resist the cancelling of 1411, the designated NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER, for the embargo'ed "judgment" that was based on the forged evidence in the file, evidence of which I sent in yesterday, which the ASSOCIATES first revealed in March 2011, without barcode or any indicator of how it got to Hughes LJ, or indeed, when.
You are informed that it is an offence to tell anyone about an EMBARGO'ED JUDGMENT apart from those for whom it is intended.
The EMBARGO'ED document of 10 December 2010, to which NCN 1411 was attached, was based on the March 2011 file, and properly should never have left the C of A, let alone being provided to Christopher Semken or anyone else.
No one told MLS the position when the number was requested.
Kindly confirm safe receipt of this communication, as requested by you, and that of yesterday.
yours sincerely
Mira Makar
On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:27, Wilkins, Paul wrote:
Dear Ms Makar,
We hold bundles in the above which I confirm have not yet been destroyed. We wrote to you on 3 June 2014 (letter attached).
Please arrange for your bundles to be collected by 31 July 2014 or they will be destroyed in confidential waste
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.
Paul Wilkins
Associates
Tel no:020 7947 7381
Civil Appeals Office
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
<DOC009.PDF>
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss)
00 44 (0)7768 610071
Christos Anesti!.
www.servinglondon.com
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
From: "Mira Makar" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
To: "john.hebden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk" <john.hebden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: "mark.brodrick@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk" <mark.brodrick@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>;
"Gifford Suzanne" <suzanne.gifford@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"amy.welch@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk" <amy.welch@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"geoff.denman@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk" <geoff.denman@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"civilappeals.cmsA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk" <civilappeals.cmsA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"APPEALCOURT" <civilappeals.listing@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>;
civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; "miramakar" <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 Jul, 14 At 16:27
Subject: 14 07 07: 2009/1711 Mira Makar - URGENT-10 FILES UNDER LOCK & KEY C of A ASSOCIATES
7 July 2014
Dear Mr Hebden
Please see attached urgent communication in response to your letter to me.
yours sincerely
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss) 00 44 (0)7768 610071
Christos Anesti!.
www.servinglondon.com
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13
http://tinyurl.com/ParliamentaryCommissionBanking
http://tinyurl.com/HoL-MentalCapacityDec13p1051
http://tinyurl.com/CompetitionCommissionAuditors
http://tinyurl.com/BIS-ReformofFRC-Jan2012
http://tinyurl.com/FRCDisciplinaryTribunals
http://tinyurl.com/FRCreCapitalAdequacyDec2011
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss)
00 44 (0)7768 610071
Christos Anesti!.
www.servinglondon.com
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13
ATTACHMENT 1
Nov 30, 2020, 7:28 AM by Custodian of Information
Nov 30, 2020, 7:28 AM by Custodian of Information
From: "Sylvester, Peter (Civil Appeals)" < peter.sylvester2@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> Date: 14 March 201115:33:40 GMT To: "' mailto:mira.makar@btinternet.com'" < mailto:mira.makar ... 40 GMT To: "' mailto:mira.makar@btinternet.com'" < mailto:mira.makar@btinternet.com> Subject: 2009/1711 Dear Mira Further to our conversation this morning, it is with great regret that ...
[2010] EWCA Civ 197 (18 February 2010) Mira Makar, Permission to Appeal Granted- C of A 2009/1711. Record 14 March 2011 From Court of Appeal Head Of Associates That MM's Papers Destroyed Before Being Heard (Leveson LJ Double Booked 21.12.10) And Facilities Of Court Of Appeal Available To Her (Or Her Representatives) To Restore And Copy/Reproduce
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse