Paul Talbot-Jenkins (no. 8)

This story is another unbelievable one – but not for Paul Talbot-Jenkins to whom it happened:

NEGLECTED FIRE DAMAGE CLAIM RESULTS in EXPOSURE OF CORRUPT SOLICITORS and JUDGES by ROUTEMASTER BUS

1. A solicitor (S1) I employed in a claim for fire damage to my house deliberately let the case run out of time; the other side getting a judgement for “inordinate and inexcusable delay”. I reported him to the Law Society expecting to get some sort of assistance. Under the Solicitors Code of Conduct rules such a failing is an automatic compensation payment to the client.

2. The Law Society preferred to refer the case to a panel solicitor (S2). His reaction was one of unbelief. He looked through the papers and reported to the Law Society that there was a case of negligence. A month later he revised his report to say that there was no case of negligence.

3. The Law Society said that if I was not satisfied I should find a solicitor to take on the case. I canvassed more than 20 solicitors before one decided to look at the case (S3). He applied for Legal Aid to pursue the case, Legal Aid was granted. Instead of S3 going for the judicial decision of “Inordinate and inexcusable delay” he spent months getting the file from S1 who had sent the file to another firm of solicitors (S4) appointed by the Law Society to defend S1. So now there is a Conflict of Interest, on the one hand the Law Society are funding my case while paying for S4 to defend S1. Finally, he (S3) had to get an advice from a barrister but could not find one locally. A London barrister who had been in the news acting on behalf of a police officer was approached (S5). After considering the papers for some time, and having said that he did not do Legal Aid work, he produced an “Advice” to say that there was a case to answer, but there were some “difficulties”. Weeks later S5 changed his mind to say that S3 had issued the writ out of time. S5 was not aware of the 1986 amendment to the Limitation Act, a criticism he brushed aside as if it did not matter. His bill to the Law Society was £3,500.

4. S3 now relinquished the case and handed me the file. The fire damage occurred in 1977, the action by S1 was struck out in 1984; it was now 1990.

DISCOVERING INCOMPLETE DISCOVERIES and their COVER-UPS

5. I decided to fight the case as a litigant in person. The first thing I discovered was that S4 had not in fact made complete discovery. Letters to S4 did not have the effect of getting the missing documents.

6. I made application to the court for an order to inspect the file and to take copies. This order was granted. My wife and I travelled to Norwich to the offices of S4. We were shown onto a small office with the bundle of papers on a table but no copier. We were told to put yellow stickers onto the documents we wanted. This we did, and we made notes of each and every document, date, from who to whom and a short resume of the contents – 32 documents in all. We were told that copies would be sent to us, rather grudgingly we had to accept their word.

7. Weeks passed and no documents arrived, repeated letters finally produced 7 out of the 32. Further letters produced another 4. I returned to the court with an application for discovery of the remaining documents. S4 was adamant that the other 21 documents were not on their file. In spite of my protestations and presentation of our list, the judge said that he had to believe S4. The judge asked me what I wanted him to do, I asked him to make an order that S4 swear an affidavit that those 21 documents were not on file. Eventually an affidavit arrived sworn by S1 to say simply that all documents had been disclosed.

8. My next step was to apply to change my pleadings to include fraud, false accounting, withholding evidence and perverting the course of justice. The judge made one or two alterations principally to remove the word “fraud” from the title line of one of the paragraphs.

DISHONESTY in PLEADINGS – DISMISSED as SPURIOUS ALLEGATIONS

9. S4 then put in an amended defence to counter my amended pleadings. In trying to evade the allegations S4 fell deeper into the hole. One of their reasons was that S1 did not owe me money because it had been used to pay for an expert witness report, and they attached a set of S1’s account ledger cards to prove it. The ledger cards they attached to their defence were markedly different to the ledger cards in the file on the initial discovery by S3. There was an additional page and a half of entries including the sum for the expert witness. This account was false for 2 reasons; firstly my insurers were paying for S1’s account, and secondly there was a copy of S1’s bill of costs to the Law Society which also included the exact same sum of money for the witness report.

10. Armed with this evidence, I went back to the court with an application to strike out the defence for dishonesty in pleadings. The judge dismissed my application saying that I was making spurious allegations against a well respected firm of solicitors.

STEPPING UP LEGAL VIOLENCE into BANKRUPTCY

11. In another action against Anglian Windows for uncompleted work, the court saw an opportunity to protect its own officers. The judge ignored all evidence including Anglian’s own work sheets showing they had been back 4 times over 2 years and still had not completed. The judge found in their favour saying that I had broken the contract.

12. My appeal was refused, Butler Schloss saying that the appeal court was not for overturning the decision of a lower court unless the judge was mad.

13. Anglian were paid from funds in the court, but went ahead with bankruptcy proceedings as the only way my litigation against S1 could be stopped.

14. We got the bankruptcy annulled by paying £82K for an alleged original debt of £1400.

ROUTEMASTER BUS as a MOUTHPIECE for ANTI-CORRUPTION

15. Because I could see no way of succeeding against a corrupt system, I purchased an ex-London Routemaster bus to tour around in with banners exposing the corruption in Britain. At the G20 demos on April 1st last year, the police succeeded in damaging my bus. In answer to my complaint to the IPCC, the police cooked up false statements from at least 2 officers in order to discredit me. The IPCC refuse to accept that the police told obvious lies in their witness statements. The damage cost me nearly £5,000 to have repaired. I am a pensioner with little more than a state pension to live on and I am supposed to accept all this crap.

ENTERS NATWEST for CRIMINAL COLLUSION

16. In 1984 when S1 knew that I was after him for failing to get my damages claim to court, he enlisted the help of one of his “companions”, my bank manager. Sums of money paid into my private account from a trust fund went missing over a period of 2 years, and direct credit transfers from customers of my export business disappeared, causing cash flow problems for the business. They set up bogus deals with the intention of absorbing my working capital and incurring borrowing. With proof positive of the bank’s wrong doing I closed all my accounts leaving them with a £36,000 overdraft. The bank has made all sorts of threats against me, but when challenged they have gone away fearing publicity if it ever gets to court.

17. When a person or a company is made bankrupt, there are all sorts of laws and rules that apply not only to the debtor but to the Insolvency Practitioner, such as reports and investigations to be done with respect to the affairs of the debtor leading up to the bankruptcy. The IPs and the Official Receiver are all ignoring the rules and claiming the “discretion” ticket and, in most cases I have come across, they are neither recording their actions nor submitting reports to the court or to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; formerly the DTI. In many cases the procedures leading up to bankruptcy applications are erroneous. Much of British manufacturing industry has been sacrificed to bolster the corrupt banking practices and to enrich lawyers and insolvency practitioners. The end result of failing to tackle this corruption is the financial chaos we all now find ourselves in. The warnings have been repeated many times over the past 30 years or more. The biggest scam of all is how the government have shifted the debts of the impecunious banks onto the British tax payer and the greedy bankers walk away.

18. In 1999, in an attempt to bring the NatWest bank to court, I issued a Statutory Demand against the bank and its chief executives. The Demand was never set aside, the bank applied for an injunction to stop me winding up the bank. The bank was obviously scared to make an application to have the demand set aside because that would bring all the matters into court. I tried to get the injunction dismissed in May 2000. The judge dismissed my application and reduced the banks cost by more than half to £2,000. The bank altered the wording of documents in order to evade an issue of fraud. I replied with an affidavit, which, to this day has not been challenged although the bank’s solicitors did acknowledge receipt of it.

OPEN QUESTIONS

19. I wonder how it stands with an unsatisfied, unchallenged Statutory Demand against it, and an unanswered affidavit exposing DWS’s false affidavit? Interesting scenario, the injunction DWS took out and which is dated the day before the date of their application, is founded on a false affidavit, so presumably the injunction is not valid, shall I file a petition to wind up the NatWest?

Paul’s case is no. 8 under Grouping Cases to Enforce the Bank of England Act 1694 and he introduces himself on video to our meeting in Committee Room 14 of the House of Commons in April 2009.

1 Comment (+add yours?)

  1. peteretherden
    Dec 06, 2013 @ 09:14:39

    Re: Incomplete Discovery (para 6).

    With the mobile phone (and its digital camera) so ubiquitous nowadays, it makes sense to have one with you on this type of ‘discovery’, to make sure you leave the premises of the recalcitrant solicitor with a record of the documents previously incompletely discovered. I realize that this was probably not possible back in 1990. So this is now by way of being a cautionary tale. Solicitors still tend to operate in the dark ages, so it may be several years before they realize that their ‘Bleak House’ methods really don’t work in the digital age.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,278 other followers

%d bloggers like this: