Roger J.P. Jones (no. 19)
The BLATANT CORRUPTION of GOVERNMENT MINISTERS, LAWYERS and COURT OFFICERS
Below I set out my case which has considerable implications, of which Misconduct in Public Office, carrying up to seven years imprisonment, is the most serious.
MY CASE BACKGROUND
1. With next to no capital at 21 I started a pig business with 4 sows on 60 acres of land I purchased with a 100% mortgage.
2. Over the next 17 years I built up my pig business to 500 sows producing 10,000 pork pigs per year, to a value of £400,000 / £500,000 per year.
3. I was trading with Spillers farm feeds purchasing their feeds and selling my pigs through Spillers.
4. They failed to pay me as they should, despite numerous promises to do so. I calculated they owed me £35,000.
5. I called my Solicitor and Accountant to my farm. It was decided to go for a Receiving Order that day, Thursday 30 March 1978, in order to force Spillers to pay up. I went to the Court that day with my Solicitor. He made out the form at the Court and I signed it. I was in debt to no one other than normal trade terms, but could see I soon would be if Spillers did not pay up.
6. Next day, a Friday, a man from Spillers and an assistant Official Receiver (O.R.) arrived at my farm. I demanded that Spillers boss and the OR come to my farm. My Solicitor had gone on holiday. They disregarded my mostly strong complaints and the O.R. told me loudly to “Be quiet, I’ve heard enough, you’re wasting my time. It’s my business now, it’s not your business any more. It’s for me to say what should happen.”
Spillers’ Boss and the O.R. were on Christian names with each other.
7. The day following (Saturday) the O.R. returned and removed all my account books and paper work, much to my immense surprise and concern!!
8. The following Monday Spillers arrived with a fleet of lorries and took away all the pigs, the O.R. had sold to Spillers.
9. Before my First Creditors Meeting, Tuesday 11 April 1978, Spillers made the surprise public announcement of £28 million losses, 23 factory closures, and 8,00 redundant. They were subsequently taken over by Dalgety’s.
WHAT is a RECEIVING ORDER
A Receiving Order (R.O.) is a protective device. It does NOT divest a debtor of his property, or make the debtor a bankrupt, but secures the debtor and his property, against action by individual creditors. It also allows the debtor to sue for the recovery of what belongs to him without giving security for costs.
Following a R.O. the Official Receiver (O.R.) must investigate the reason why a R.O. was petitioned for, and ensure that debtors make out a statement of their affairs, as well as take note of any proposals by debtors regarding the settlement of their debts with their creditors.
The O.R. must then notify creditors of these matters before the First Creditors Meeting (F.C.M.).
The principal purpose of a R.O. is to allow creditors at the F.C.M. to consider:
(a) The debtors proposal for “composition” (the term for a financial arrangement with creditors).
(b) If it is expedient that the debtor be adjudged bankrupt.
(c) The mode of dealing with the property of the debtor.
A further aspect to those below.
Halsbury’s Laws England on Bankruptcy at Paragraph 368 reads:
- “Effect on debtors estate. The making of the Receiving Order vests no estate or interest in the Official Receiver; it gives him no power to bring or defend actions.”
- “Before adjudication it is not proper for the Official Receiver to realise the debtors estate, or deal with it, except for the purpose of protecting and preserving it; although he may sell perishable goods.”
The HAPPENINGS in my CASE
1. My petition’s purpose was completely changed by the added words “and that I be adjudged bankrupt” written in a different hand and ink to the rest of my petition, made out by my solicitor. My solicitor’s affidavit supports this and the petition with the added words in different hand and ink is still in my Court file.
2. There was no hearing of my petition, neither was a Receiving Order or a Bankruptcy Order signed. Despite the Chief Clerk of Oxford County Court lying in terms of procedure and fact by stating in a letter to me 18 June 1982: “You signed the petition in the presence of a Court Officer and immediately you did this, you were adjudicated bankrupt, and a Receiving Order was made against you. The Receiving Order and Order
of Adjudication were placed before the Registrar for his signature.”
3. I was unlawfully kept out of my “First Creditors Meeting” that by law I should have attended, despite having written to all of my creditors imploring them to attend, which they did in such numbers that the room was packed.
Section 22 of the 1914 Bankruptcy Act reading:
“(1) Every debtor against whom a receiving order is made shall unless prevented by sickness or other sufficient cause, attend the first meeting of his creditors, and shall submit to such examination and give such information as the meeting may require.”
Also at the heart of my case are the Vice Chancellor’s words in his Judgement at my appeal:
“Just how the added words [and that I may be adjudged bankrupt] came to be inserted is a matter that cannot very well be resolved today upon the information that is now before us.”
When the case referred to as a precedent in the white book ORD. 13/9/11.
THE KING’S BENEATH DIVISION, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND, THE COURT OF APPEAL. 1909. NIXON v LOUNDERS (1) states:
“… but where the evidence before the Court on the hearing of the motion is such as reasonably to suggest fraud, though not to establish it, the Court will direct as an issue to try the question of fraud.”
Other significant words in the Vice Chancellor’s Judgement were:
“Throughout the hearing before us the debtor has made many complaints, has voiced many suspicions and has made many accusations about many matters in respect of many people. Some grave allegations have been made against court officials. We have listened, I hope patiently, to all that he has had to say, and he must not think, and nobody else must think, that because he has not been questioned on these many accusations. they have been accepted as being firmly based”
The Barrister for the Treasury Solicitor, backed by a large team, for the two days of the hearing, failed to challenge me on any substantial matter. Because I feel certain to do so would only have enforced the disgraceful wrongdoing of Court Officers and those responsible for their control. As well the blatant lies told by Government Ministers responsible for overall control.
At a further hearing the Vice Chancellor refused me leave to appeal from the High Court to the House of Lords.
Another fundamental point at the heart of my case, and related to the above:
I contacted my MP Douglas Hurd, to ask him to intervene on my behalf. He did so. However, the Department of Trade lied to him in a letter (October 1979) when Reginald Eyre MP (Con), was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the D. of T. with responsibility for the Insolvency Services writing to Hurd:
“As Stanley Clinton Davis mentioned [(Lab) subsequently a European Commissioner, and later made a Lord (Eyre's predecessor in office)] in his letter to you, both the Official Receiver and the Trustee are officers of the court, the Official Receiver being responsible for the investigation of Mr Jones’ affairs and the Trustee for the realisation and distribution of the assets in Mr Jones’ estate. The Department cannot intervene”
This “The Department cannot intervene” when Halsbury’s Laws of England on bankruptcy, at paragraph 221 reads:
FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
“The Department of Trade and Industry is vested with statutory
powers and duties relating to the supervision of the administration of bankrupts` estates. The Department certifies the appointments of trustees in bankruptcy other than the official receiver, has the power to remove them and to grant them their release, supervises and controls official receivers, and enforces the performance by official receivers and trustees of their duties in administering bankrupt’s estates and in investigating the conduct of bankrupts.”
Paragraph 458 reading:
“The official receivers form part of the insolvency survives administered by the department”
Reginald Eyre went on in his letter October 1979:
“However, I understand that Mr Jones has written to my Department on several occasions and whilst his complaints have been closely examined, nothing has been discovered to suggest that the Official Receiver or Trustee have not been carrying out their duties in a proper manner”
FURTHER ASPECTS OF COVER UP THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S
DEPARTMENT AND THE LAW SOCIETY
As regards the Law Society, my new Solicitor John Sprat of Shoosmiths and Harrison grossly misled Counsel as he grossly misled the Legal Aid Board, causing my Legal Aid to be revoked, when claming £4,469 in costs, including Counsel` fee of £175.
Indeed, for example, I discovered when I eventually managed to get hold of Sprat`s file:
(a) He turned things inside out with a travesty of the truth:
“His business ran into financial difficulties, Messrs Spillers helped him out for a short time but then foreclosed on a charge and eventually Mr Jones was made bankrupt”
(b) The Law Society wrote to him when concerned that he had estimated the cost of getting Counsels Opinion would be as much as £2000 to inquire if the £2000 included an accountants` report. He replied that it did. Though he had already spent £3,830 at 1980 prices! He never did obtain an accountant’s report, though counsel advised the obvious need to obtain one, and I insisted in writing that one be obtained, he had promised me he would obtain one. How could he possibly justify spending £4,469 without getting an accountant’s report in such circumstances?
I complained to the Law Society of Sprat`s behaviour in hiding Court Officer’s and Government Ministers deceit and wrongdoing. I complained of his acting generally against my interests, together with those conducting the Law Society’s complaints procedures that I had fully utilised.
The Law Society wrote to me in defence of their own non-action in the matter:
“Further, it is the opinion of the society that, as a matter of law the society’s handling of Legal Aid applications or of complainants against solicitors dose not give rise to a duty of care to the applicant for Legal Aid or the complainant”
What rot! What absolute tripe! The Law Society stands no differently to any other Society, Business or Individual in Tort. The test for deciding whether there has been a breach of duty of care is laid down in the oft-cited dictum of Alderson B., in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.:
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
Note the use of the word “reasonable” twice. How could it be reasonable for the Law Society not to show care in investigating the behaviour of Legal Aided funded “Solicitors of the Supreme Court” and in administering (at that time) government funds in the form of Legal Aid?
We now see how ranks close even more as every attempt is made to appear reasonable whilst covering up the unreasonable and the embarrassing.
Professionals just hate faults in their work being pointed out by laymen. When I complained to the Lay Observer (the Lord Chancellor’s appointed supposed independent catch net behind the Law Society) – and this is important – he wrote to me regarding Legal Aid and misrepresentations and omissions of facts by solicitors:
“I am here bound to observe that I have seen no evidence whatever to indicate that the solicitors deliberately confused and misrepresented matters or that any facts were improperly omitted. Such facts would only have been improperly omitted had they been omitted with the deliberate intention of harming your case”
I complained strongly about this utterly outragous response in terms of law and fact, to the Lord Chancellor’s Office.
A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Norton v Lord Ashburton
“The solicitor contracts with his clients to be skilful and careful. For failure to perform his obligations he may be made liable at law in contract or even in tort, for negligence in breach of a duty imposed on him.”
Further regarding Solicitors, in a Precedent case - Myers -v- Elman on appeal before the House of Lords. It is made plain beyond any question whatsoever, the great care required by Solicitors in carrying out their work, because they are Officers of the Court.
I further complained about the response to my complaints to the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor’s office in response disclaimed the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility for control over the Law Society, Solicitors, Legal Aid and the Lay Observer when writing to me:
“The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the professional conduct of solicitors since they are members of an independent, self-governing profession.”
This ridiculous high-handed dismissal is despite knowing:
The Lord Chancellor’s responsibility for all Courts, and so for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and for Legal Aid, is clearly shown in Vacher`s Parliamentary Companion under:
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES: LORD CHANCELLOR’S DEPARTMENT
“…and for the administration of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal. High Court and Crown Court) and County Courts in England and Wales, and for Legal Aid schemes.”
Plainly Solicitors are “OFFICERS of the COURT”, so the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility.
1. My bankruptcy was extended, when it came up for review in its 5th year. Which it had to at that time (now much shorter). It was extended by 6 months to just after the 6 year time limit for me to bring a case for damages.
A bankrupt cannot bring a case without the permission of the Trustee. I was claiming damages from the OR (effectively against the Department of Trade) and Trustee.
The Trustee was a man called Peak, an accountant. He came to my farm with Spillers App. 18 hours after my filing my petition. He was later made Trustee at my F.C.M. of which I was unlawfully kept out. The question must be asked as to why Spillers and Peak came with an O.R.`s assistant so shortly after I filed my petition? Plainly the O.R. had contacted Spillers. As I have said the Spillers boss and the O.R., were on Christian name terms when they arrived later at my insistence.
2. Following my filing my petition late Thursday afternoon and Spillers and the O.R.`s visit next day, a Friday. (As I have said: the O.R. came to my farm on the Saturday morning and removed all my account books and paper work!!!) Spillers removed all my 4000 pigs on the following Monday.
3. As my solicitor L. Chamkin went on holiday the day following my signing my petition, I tried two further firms of solicitors. One at Oxford the other at Bicester. Only to be told that they had no one that had expertise in bankruptcy, or knew of a firm of solicitors that did.
4. It took me years to get a sight of my Court Papers, that I had a right to see. I only managed to do so when the Chief Clerk was out at lunch! I did not realize their importance not knowing of the added words “and that I may be adjudged bankrupt” that were not on my copy.
5. At my private examination prior to my F.C.M. at the O.R. offices, the accounts were produced by the O.R. that were plainly grossly incorrect. I refused to sign them as correct as I should within the letter of the law. Naturally I wished to bring this matter up at my F.C.M.
6. I made every effort to draw the injustice that I had suffered to the attention of those responsible for the disposal of my estate; indeed my correspondence during the ensuing 14 months included:
- 22 letters to, and 13 from the Inspector General of Bankruptcy at the Department of Trade;
- 12 to and 9 from the O.R.;
- 20 to and 13 from the Trustee of my estate;
- and 11 to and 7 from the Trustee’s solicitor.
7. Not surprisingly to me in the circumstances, 732 of the pigs that the O.R arranged to be sold to Spillers and removed from my farm by them were never accounted for. This was theft pure and simple.
8. To get a sight of my Court Papers at Oxford County Court, and hold of the papers removed by the O.R. (recovered from Peaks office) as well as solicitor Sprats papers took years and required I am afraid to say, some, if I say so myself cunning on my part.
Roger J. P. Jones