Visa reqts for US

"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)

"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)

"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!

"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!

"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!

if You had a police caution held over for 1 year , not taken to court, would
the same rules apply

marion

if You had a police caution held over for 1 year , not taken to court, would
the same rules apply

marion

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

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

"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