1. My wife and I have been assailed by soul-destroying, relationship destroying hate-mail for over six years in which we are repeatedly accused of fraud and other crimes related to the premature death of my closest brother and the subsequent theft of his estate.
2. The hate-mail vilifying my wife and I have been widely distributed for years to members of the family and to others by way of letters, text messages, open post cards, etc., etc. and those messages continue to be distributed.
3. Some of the recipients of the hate-mail messages are statutory beneficiaries of my late brother's estate, such as it was, who naturally have a legitimate cause to be concerned as to the the honesty of my wife I when confronted with the vociferous contents of the hate-mail being sent to them.
4. I am the legal Administrator of my late brother's affairs and have repeatedly asked Hertfordshire Constabulary to investigate and prosecute the hate-mail together with the fraud it alleges, along with a fraudulent Will found among my brother's medical records just after death. 
5. The Will had not been among the medical records up to that day and had not been recorded in any of the records of the care agency responsible for caring for my brother. The Will was not signed by my brother nor was it executed in accordance with S9  Wills Act 1837 but it was apparently "Witnessed" by the last carer to see my brother's dead body on the day he died. 
6. Hertfordshire Constabulary has continually refused to prosecute the hate-mail since 7 September, 2014 .... because that would also involve them recording, investigating and prosecuting the original conveyancing fraud and the false Will. 
7. The Chief Registrar to the Land Registry has also refused to use his statutory powers to investigate the conveyancing fraud in the public Land Registry.This is so even though the deed of transfer on the TR2 transfer form, was not signed when the conveyance was registered at the Land Registry.       
8. I request the support of CrowdJustice backers to seek an injunction to stop the hate-mail and to obtain the delivery up of the deed of conveyance to prove to the police, to the Chief Registrar to the Land Registry and to the beneficiaries to the estate that the original conveyance was a fraud.
9. Support from the CrowdJustice backers would help prove to the Chief Registrar to the Land Registry and to Hastings Borough Council that there is a fraudulent entry in the public register and, consequently, an on-going fraud that the Council relies upon for property licencing purposes.  
10. In the event that the Chief Registrar to the Land Registry continues to avoid his apparent obligation to ensure the accuracy of the public register when confronted with a document demonstrating an original conveyance fraud, I would seek the further support of CrowdJustice backers to bring a judicial review of the Chief Register's conduct in public office.
11. There would be a considerable public interest element to such a Judicial Review, as a judicial ruling would re-establish the obligation of the Chief Register to the Land Registry to inquire into and to protect the beneficial interests of joint purchasers of property from the date of transfer.
12. This would likely be of interest to first-time buyers, co-habiting couples and any other couples who take on trust the notion that registering a private estate with the Land Registry automatically protects their individual beneficial interests.

 BACKGROUND TO MY APPEAL TO CROWDJUSTICE BACKERS

• ALLAN ANDREW KIRBY was my closest brother and we are both shown in the photograph below, which was taken just a short time before he died of asphyxiation on the floor of his flat over the road behind him. He had not been properly medicated by his care agency on the day he died.
• Allan and I grew up together, went to school together and worked together and I became his Next of Kin when his partner left him to go back to her husband in Australia. It turned out that she had never been divorced and had dishonestly misled Allan, the rest of our family and I in the matter for many years.
• I became the Administrator to Allan's estate when he died after a long struggle with Parkinsons Disease. I found that the title to his flat had been registered as a joint tenancy without his knowledge and had been procured by fraud at the time of the conveyance. At that time Allan had been suffering with cognitive impairment attributable to the Parkinson's Disease and the partner had dealt exclusively with the original conveyancing solicitor. 
• When I looked into the matter I tried to obtain a copy of the original conveyance contract from that original solicitor. He said he did not have the contract in his conveyancing file and when I tried to obtain it from the solicitor on the other side of the contract the original solicitor prevented him from disclosing it to me.
• Under S52 Law of Property Act 1925 a conveyance is void at law unless achieved by a deed.  As far as I have been able to ascertain my brother had not signed any deed required  for a legitimate conveyance and certainly had not signed the deed necessary to create an 'express declaration of trust' on the Land Registry's TR2 form, as required by S53 Law of Property Act 1925. 
• When I discovered the truth I asked the Land Registry to impose a restriction on the title but the Chief Registrar to the Land Registry refused saying :"The fact that the Transfer is not signed by the Transferees is not a matter the Land Registry raises".
• This was so despite the fact that the form states on its face that, in the case of more that one transferee, all 'MUST' sign. 
• Furthermore, Government Guidance to the public and the Land Registry's own video advice to the Public and Conveyancers state that the deed on the TR1 or TR2 transfer form must be signed and dated in the Trust panel. 
• ALL LAND REGISTRY FORMS ARE DESIGNED BY THE LAND REGISTRY AS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER FOR THEIR EXCLUSIVE USE, THEY ARE ALL APPROVED BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR BUT THEY ARE NOT CHECKED FOR SIGNATURES BY THE LAND REGISTRY AT THE  POINT OF TRANSFER.  
• When challenged originally the Land Registry tried to deceive me by saying that the form must be signed only in the case of "covenants" or "applications" (leaving out "restrictions"). 
• When later challenged again in a letter to the Chief Registrar on 24 May, 2020, he just ignored me again.
• All the time the hate-mail keeps coming from the disenfranchised beneficiary.
• I now need to obtain the injunction mentioned above together with a Court Order for the delivery up of the original conveyancing contract from the original solicitor and then to take further legal advice and seek a remedy from the Chief Registrar to the Land Registry. This might include a Judicial Review and a judicial declaration as to his specific responsibilities to the public in the conduct of his PUBLIC OFFICE.