If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"IanAl" wrote in message news On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:25:51 +0100, "Peter Crosland" wrote: Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the US many times without problems. That is the US requirement and always has been. AFAIK you have always had to declare this so you may have problems explaining to the US Imigration service why you did not do so before. You need to obtain a copy of your file on the Police National Computer. You can get an application form at any police station. Since the OP managed to travel to the US before without any problems I would suggest that she keep quiet about the arrest. The chance of the US authorities finding out about the arrest are pretty much nil unless someone tells them. To be honest that was what I was going to do but as from October 26, you have to be fingerprinted going in to the US and I'm afraid it will show up then (Email sent from laptop hence different id) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"IanAl" wrote in message news On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:25:51 +0100, "Peter Crosland" wrote: Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the US many times without problems. That is the US requirement and always has been. AFAIK you have always had to declare this so you may have problems explaining to the US Imigration service why you did not do so before. You need to obtain a copy of your file on the Police National Computer. You can get an application form at any police station. Since the OP managed to travel to the US before without any problems I would suggest that she keep quiet about the arrest. The chance of the US authorities finding out about the arrest are pretty much nil unless someone tells them. To be honest that was what I was going to do but as from October 26, you have to be fingerprinted going in to the US and I'm afraid it will show up then (Email sent from laptop hence different id) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Tough" wrote in message ... sniper wrote: I have no paperwork relating to the case, - I can't even remember what court it was in- never thinking I'd need it so now I have to apparently contact New Scotland yard to try to find some record. Exactly how, or how long this will take, I have yet to find out You have looked here, I suppose: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web.../add_crime.htm Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the US many times without problems. It looks like you're over a bit of a barrel. You're right, it is a nasty take on civil liberties. It's easy for me to say, but to fight back you should come clean. You didn't do anything wrong, and to imply that arrest = guilt is what a police state what do. A person ought to be able to declare a pointless/incorrect arrest without it being seen negative, otherwise it's just adding fuel to their fire. They could always deny your visa and there's not much you can do about it after that point, but otherwise you're being denied entry implicitly for no fault on your part. As another poster writes, they're unlikely to connect that arrest to you, but you technically ought to declare it. Why not discuss it with your employer, and see what they advise you to do. At least then it's out in the open, and any delays can be explained and maybe they can help adjust schedules to fit? -- Ken Tough That's what I think I am going to do so now I'm going to have to jump through hoops to get the court details (which I suppose you have to pay for - don;t even know how to go about it) and then pay £72 for a VISA when I've not done anything! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Tough" wrote in message ... sniper wrote: I have no paperwork relating to the case, - I can't even remember what court it was in- never thinking I'd need it so now I have to apparently contact New Scotland yard to try to find some record. Exactly how, or how long this will take, I have yet to find out You have looked here, I suppose: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web.../add_crime.htm Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the US many times without problems. It looks like you're over a bit of a barrel. You're right, it is a nasty take on civil liberties. It's easy for me to say, but to fight back you should come clean. You didn't do anything wrong, and to imply that arrest = guilt is what a police state what do. A person ought to be able to declare a pointless/incorrect arrest without it being seen negative, otherwise it's just adding fuel to their fire. They could always deny your visa and there's not much you can do about it after that point, but otherwise you're being denied entry implicitly for no fault on your part. As another poster writes, they're unlikely to connect that arrest to you, but you technically ought to declare it. Why not discuss it with your employer, and see what they advise you to do. At least then it's out in the open, and any delays can be explained and maybe they can help adjust schedules to fit? -- Ken Tough That's what I think I am going to do so now I'm going to have to jump through hoops to get the court details (which I suppose you have to pay for - don;t even know how to go about it) and then pay £72 for a VISA when I've not done anything! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Tough" wrote in message ... sniper wrote: I have no paperwork relating to the case, - I can't even remember what court it was in- never thinking I'd need it so now I have to apparently contact New Scotland yard to try to find some record. Exactly how, or how long this will take, I have yet to find out You have looked here, I suppose: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web.../add_crime.htm Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the US many times without problems. It looks like you're over a bit of a barrel. You're right, it is a nasty take on civil liberties. It's easy for me to say, but to fight back you should come clean. You didn't do anything wrong, and to imply that arrest = guilt is what a police state what do. A person ought to be able to declare a pointless/incorrect arrest without it being seen negative, otherwise it's just adding fuel to their fire. They could always deny your visa and there's not much you can do about it after that point, but otherwise you're being denied entry implicitly for no fault on your part. As another poster writes, they're unlikely to connect that arrest to you, but you technically ought to declare it. Why not discuss it with your employer, and see what they advise you to do. At least then it's out in the open, and any delays can be explained and maybe they can help adjust schedules to fit? -- Ken Tough That's what I think I am going to do so now I'm going to have to jump through hoops to get the court details (which I suppose you have to pay for - don;t even know how to go about it) and then pay £72 for a VISA when I've not done anything! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
if You had a police caution held over for 1 year , not taken to court, would
the same rules apply marion |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
if You had a police caution held over for 1 year , not taken to court, would
the same rules apply marion |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Peter Crosland
writes I found the OP most interesting and wonder if it has similar in a way with my experiences below. I now refer to Peters post. You need to obtain a copy of your file on the Police National Computer. Do tell me how? I have been trying for six months. The latest try (Having first gone twice to the local police office.) was on Monday last the 12 September at Banbury Police station where they "acted" extremely thick!! Having said that perhaps not. I say this as they may have been instructed to not help me. And be aware of my wish to bring cases of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE against Chef Constables of Thames Valley Police. regarding non action in the matter set out in length below, And The handling of my complaints by the PCA Police Complaints Authority. And two recent plain cases of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment (At Banbury Police Station) All I got from the Police Station on Monday was a form (Not filled in) with the top 1/2 saying the same as the bottom 1/2 namely; INFORMATION SECURITY/DATA PROTECTION The below named person attended Banbury Police Station on the ...... and would like to have access to their Prosectuion/*** Conviction History records for employment/immigration purposes. Please ensure all names are given SURNAME: .................. FORENAMES: .................. Date of Birth: ............... Residential Address: ................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. Post Code: .................................. When completed please fax to Data Protection on 7776424 ********** As spelt. ========================================== 3 Jan 03 Roger J. P. Jones 12 Windmill Street, Deddington Banbury, OXON. OX15 OQW Tel: 01869 338845 Fax: 08700568457 GOVERNMENT MINISTERS LAWYERS AND COURT OFFICERS BLATANT CORRUPTION Below I set out my case which has considerable implications. Of which Misconduct in Public Office, carries 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 purchase with a 100% mortgage. 2. Over the next 17 years I built it 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 O.R. arrived at my farm. I demanded that Spillers boss and the Official Receiver come to my farm. My Solicitor had gone on holiday. They disregarded my most 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 petitions 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 solicitors 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 8 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 then 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 if 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 Chancellors 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 Chancellors Judgement we "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 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 CHANCELLORS 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 council 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 accountants 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 againat 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 their 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 Chancellors 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 outrages response in terms of law and fact, to the Lord Chancellor's Office. A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Norton v Lord Ashburton (1914) stated: "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 grate 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 Court's, 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. END Notes: 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 filled 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 release 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. the at the O.R. offices 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 Trustees 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 -- Roger J. P. Jones |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Peter Crosland
writes I found the OP most interesting and wonder if it has similar in a way with my experiences below. I now refer to Peters post. You need to obtain a copy of your file on the Police National Computer. Do tell me how? I have been trying for six months. The latest try (Having first gone twice to the local police office.) was on Monday last the 12 September at Banbury Police station where they "acted" extremely thick!! Having said that perhaps not. I say this as they may have been instructed to not help me. And be aware of my wish to bring cases of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE against Chef Constables of Thames Valley Police. regarding non action in the matter set out in length below, And The handling of my complaints by the PCA Police Complaints Authority. And two recent plain cases of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment (At Banbury Police Station) All I got from the Police Station on Monday was a form (Not filled in) with the top 1/2 saying the same as the bottom 1/2 namely; INFORMATION SECURITY/DATA PROTECTION The below named person attended Banbury Police Station on the ...... and would like to have access to their Prosectuion/*** Conviction History records for employment/immigration purposes. Please ensure all names are given SURNAME: .................. FORENAMES: .................. Date of Birth: ............... Residential Address: ................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. Post Code: .................................. When completed please fax to Data Protection on 7776424 ********** As spelt. ========================================== 3 Jan 03 Roger J. P. Jones 12 Windmill Street, Deddington Banbury, OXON. OX15 OQW Tel: 01869 338845 Fax: 08700568457 GOVERNMENT MINISTERS LAWYERS AND COURT OFFICERS BLATANT CORRUPTION Below I set out my case which has considerable implications. Of which Misconduct in Public Office, carries 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 purchase with a 100% mortgage. 2. Over the next 17 years I built it 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 O.R. arrived at my farm. I demanded that Spillers boss and the Official Receiver come to my farm. My Solicitor had gone on holiday. They disregarded my most 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 petitions 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 solicitors 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 8 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 then 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 if 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 Chancellors 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 Chancellors Judgement we "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 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 CHANCELLORS 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 council 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 accountants 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 againat 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 their 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 Chancellors 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 outrages response in terms of law and fact, to the Lord Chancellor's Office. A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Norton v Lord Ashburton (1914) stated: "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 grate 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 Court's, 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. END Notes: 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 filled 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 release 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. the at the O.R. offices 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 Trustees 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 -- Roger J. P. Jones |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"kittykat" wrote in message ... if You had a police caution held over for 1 year , not taken to court, would the same rules apply marion Yes, the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply, as US is outside UK jurisdiction for us visa, must declare everything. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Visa Advice - Uganda | Danny Boy | Africa | 2 | July 11th, 2004 04:37 PM |
Visa racketeering by the US Government | Earl Evleth | Europe | 55 | April 13th, 2004 08:42 PM |
Bad experience with the Dominican republic visa requirements | ilko | Caribbean | 9 | April 12th, 2004 01:54 PM |
Thai visa costs | Tchiowa | Air travel | 0 | September 13th, 2003 06:18 AM |
Thai visa costs | Tchiowa | Asia | 0 | September 13th, 2003 06:18 AM |