Locked in car park

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

 

 

Too slow to beat the CAG Battleship when in full sail!

 

 

 

As the song goes:

 

Come, cheer up, my lads, 'tis to glory we steer,

To add something more to this wonderful year...

[noomill060]

Forgive me, but has a hearing date been listed?

[bl1989]

Not very helpful, I know, but he should never have accepted a caution. If they had no evidence, they had no case, so he would have been cleared in court.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Forgive me, but has a hearing date been listed?

 

2nd Sep 2009 I believe this will change as a result of the amended POC being accepted. It may well then be subject to another application for a stay pending the result of the police investigation.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Not very helpful, I know, but he should never have accepted a caution. If they had no evidence, they had no case, so he would have been cleared in court.

 

Shall we say they had evidence supplied them by the college but it didn't actually tell the full story of events and leave it at that for a public forum.......

 

As part of the current investigation the Police are going to be comparing the evidence which has been disclosed subsequently to that which was made available to them at the time and the manner in which such evidence was produced and presented to the investigating officers.

[Patma]

This afternoon a rather large bundle of evidence was handed in at the relevant court office and received with great interest.

Thanks to TLD, Yojimbo, exponent extraordinary, this should even things up a little.

Before the claimants have a chance to draw breath, they will find it's only the beginning.

[Patma]

If you're around TLD, I've sent you an email.

[Annoying Twit]

Before the amended POC's were accepted, I was of the personal opinion that Fred is getting railroaded by the entire legal process. Now, even more so.

 

It's one thing to gather and prepare evidence. But if the legal system isn't going to play ball, what then?

[Patma]

Before the amended POC's were accepted, I was of the personal opinion that Fred is getting railroaded by the entire legal process. Now, even more so.

 

It's one thing to gather and prepare evidence. But if the legal system isn't going to play ball, what then?

I don't know the answer to that, Annoying Twit. I certainly couldn't argue with your assessment. I guess we'll find out.

Today we took an awesome document drafted by TLD to the court and now await the response to that.That's only the beginning. Watch the ancient art of Yojimbo at work.

[Toulose LeDebt]

If you're around TLD, I've sent you an email.

 

Oh was that for me Patma? I'm sorry I didn't recognise the addressee, thought it was to you not from you.:lol:

 

 

I'm really pleased Fred has taken this big step today congratulations to you both for seeing it this far. I'm interested in knowing whether the great interest expressed by the Court was focused on the nature or the actual content of the bundle, it must have taken the Clerk quite a while to process that little package.

 

I read through it again today and there is no denying the fact that when those statements are set out as clinically as they are it makes very sobering reading indeed. All we can do on that score now is put our trust in the Justice system and sit back and wait.

 

In the meantime we'll sort out the N244 app for a stay, and tighten up the case for the Chief Super. I'm already formulating ideas for a defence and I've had a quick read through Freds work and must say I am very impressed with what he's put together. Hold fire on that just for the moment, I've a few small amendments, a few additions and just want to do a little research too.

 

A copy of todays package to the SRA and another to Devon and Cornwall Police and you and Fred might be good for a little break from events.

 

I on the other hand will still be wracking my brains trying to work out how when they freely admit they hold no records for this barrier (' over 3 years old'), PCAD has managed to so positively identify the barrier which was replaced as being manufactured by BFT?

 

Oh and also how 'You know who' has managed to screw such a simple matter up so gloriously............

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

It's one thing to gather and prepare evidence. But if the legal system isn't going to play ball, what then?

 

An unusual step was taken today and amongst several matters, possibly the most pertinent point brought to the attention of the Court was this very issue. Well the ball is very much in their court (excuse me I'll get me hat and let meself out) now, and we are shortly to find out how much of a ball player they are.

[Patma]

Hi TLD, It took the clerk a little while to grasp that what we were handing wasn't just to go with the rest of the case material, but to be handed to the Court Manager, but when she cottoned on, she was fine. She was keen I think to get it to her boss immediately;)

A copy of todays package to the SRA and another to Devon and Cornwall Police and you and Fred might be good for a little break from events.

Yep, that will be done and posted off so that they have it at the beginning of the week. I can't wait to do that. Especially the SRA one now that we have further ire to heap on the esteemed solicitors, an officer of the court, having gone back on an agreement etc......

In the meantime we'll sort out the N244 app for a stay, and tighten up the case for the Chief Super. I'm already formulating ideas for a defence and I've had a quick read through Freds work and must say I am very impressed with what he's put together. Hold fire on that just for the moment, I've a few small amendments, a few additions and just want to do a little research too.

That sounds very intriguing. I look forward to hearing when you're ready to divulge your machinations. This Yojimbo stuff is addictive isn't it?

That email will be waiting for our mutual friend on Monday morning, oh joy of joys;)

[Patma]

I on the other hand will still be wracking my brains trying to work out how when they freely admit they hold no records for this barrier (' over 3 years old'), PCAD has managed to so positively identify the barrier which was replaced as being manufactured by BFT?

Do you want answers on a postcard for that one?

[labrat]

ohh ohhh ohhh i have no postcards

[Annoying Twit]

Once again I wish to emphasise that I'm taking (unsolicited ) the role of the Devil's Advocate.

 

Without looking up the details, I believe that Fred entered some form of counterclaim against PCAD, to which no defense was entered. When Fred asked for a default judgement, he was fobbed off with a comment that the claim was "insufficiently detailed".

 

Is this right and proper behaviour by the court? Without knowing the exact details, it's hard to comment. But I don't believe that it's right and proper that a case should just be ignored like that. I think it would be interesting if a lawyer were to give that case the once-over, and comment on whether the case presented was properly or improperly ignored.

 

I've seen it written that the "legal system" as a whole will not treat litigants in person seriously, and they are rarely or never taken seriously. While I do not have the legal knowledge (nor have I seen Fred's case) to say for sure, perhaps the example mentioned in the previous paragraph already shows that the court is not playing ball. And if they can ignore Fred's previous counterclaim, what other (potentially) improper things might happen?

 

Here's a web site which mentions the problem that Fred may be facing now:

 

Litigant in Person

 

How does this site help?

 

Many cases are lost, not because they are inherently bad cases, but because LIPs may make technical or procedural errors that are then exploited by their legally trained opponents. Despite reforms introduced by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), there is still a tendency for some Judges to pay more attention to professional lawyers than to Litigants in Person – a situation that the lawyers are, of course, quick to capitalise upon. We hope that this site will help LIPs to avoid these pitfalls by providing background information on court procedures, the English legal system, the CPR and, where appropriate, statues and case law. We also aim to provide a one-stop source of contact information for support groups and information services of use to LIPs.

 

Fred's counter claim that was (as far as I can see) just ignored ..... was it inspected by the Community Legal Service before Fred submitted it to the court?

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1343.htm

 

 

5.3 It is not the function of court officials to give legal advice. However, subject to that, they will do their best to assist any litigant. Litigants in person who need further assistance should contact the Community Legal Service through their Information Points. The CLS are developing local networks of people giving legal assistance such as law centres, local solicitors or the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. CLS Information Points are being set up in libraries and other public places. Litigants can telephone the CLS to find their nearest CLS Information Point on 0845 608 1122 or can log on to the CLS website for the CLS directory and for legal information. [url=http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1343.htm#top][/url] |

 

15.4 The RCJ Advice Bureau off the Main Hall at the Royal Courts of Justice is open from Monday to Friday from 10 am to 1 pm and from 2 pm to 5 pm. The bureau is run by lawyers in conjunction with the Citizens' Advice Bureau and is independent of the court. The Bureau operates on a 'first come first served' basis, or telephone advice is available on 0845 120 3715 (or 020 7947 6880) from Monday to Friday between 11 am and 12 noon and between 3 and 4 pm.

 

Edited August 1, 2009 by Annoying Twit

[bedlington83]

As a general point AT, I think you're right, and the courts themselves do seem to widely ignore the CPR. However, in this particular case, from the insights we have been given, I'm sure that TLD is more than capable of giving them a run for their money. Its my impression that he's already tied them in so many knots that even if a DJ were to do the dirty on Fred (and as you say they do seem to be doing that) and find in Plymouth College of Art's favour then the appeal should be a doddle. Let's hope I'm right.

Edited August 28, 2009 by bedlington83
SEO

[bedlington83]

TLD/Patma

 

I've spent far too many hours now trying to figure out what was originally attempted and what the various figures represent in reality but, and as a highly analytical person it pains me to admit this, I have absolutely no idea. I know you've been coming from the "how can we stop this happening to Fred" angle, but do you have a fairly clear idea of what went on way back then? A one word answer will do - I'm happy to wait for the book for the details

[Annoying Twit]

LD seeem to have created a situation where Fred was denied a stay until the appeal of the caution was complete, but they still got the caution onto the POC's. In my devil's advocate position that makes me think that LD are very skilled at manipulating the system. This could be refuted if the strategy backfires on LD at some later time, but at present it looks as if they are playing the system very effectively.

 

Since the CLS is there, would it not be a good idea to get them to double check some of the documents. Even the counterclaim (I think) that was ignored (my interpretation), what about having it checked in retrospect? I'm not saying that TLD's work needs to be second guessed (apologies TLD), but thinking along the lines of having an opinion given by a recognised legal institution which might be useful in any appeal based on legal process.

 

Edit: Let's assume for a moment that Fred is being railroaded (which is only my opinion at present). Let's say that sufficient evidence can be gathered to show that due process has not been followed, including CLS and/or other opinion, information from the manufacturer of the barrier, etc. What happens if Fred then goes to his local MP with this problem. He can't walk in with 50 pages of documentation and expect his MP to read it. But let's say that a brief summary is enough. What can the MP do? Unless they're standing down next election due to expense claims or whatever, they possibly won't want to fob Fred off. As if anything came out in the papers later the MP would not want to be seen as complicit in Fred being railroaded. Possibly. I'm not sure what an MP can do as the legal system is independent (we're told) of political influence. But if I was the MP, I'd want to be seen as doing something to stand up for the "little guy".

Edited August 1, 2009 by Annoying Twit

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD/Patma

 

I've spent far too many hours now trying to figure out what was originally attempted and what the various figures represent in reality but, and as a highly analytical person it pains me to admit this, I have absolutely no idea. I know you've been coming from the "how can we stop this happening to Fred" angle, but do you have a fairly clear idea of what went on way back then? A one word answer will do - I'm happy to wait for the book for the details

 

Yes!

 

In 2006 somebody dug a hole for themselves, when we went looking the only way to hide the dirt from that hole was to dig another hole and drop it in there, and then another hole to hide the dirt from the second hole........

[Toulose LeDebt]

LD seeem to have created a situation where Fred was denied a stay until the appeal of the caution was complete, but they still got the caution onto the POC's. In my devil's advocate position that makes me think that LD are very skilled at manipulating the system. This could be refuted if the strategy backfires on LD at some later time, but at present it looks as if they are playing the system very effectively.

 

 

Yes it was agreed that LD would not amend the POC to introduce the caution and in return Freds application for a stay would not be upheld. Fast forward three weeks and LD submit an application that the caution be amended to the claim.

It is now a certainty that unless there appear in the new Court order any terms which we feel are advantageous to Freds cause that Fred will be submitting a further application for the case to be stayed.

I believe Fred has also made a formal complaint before the Court about this perceived abuse of Process whereby the claimant has made an agreement between themselves the defendant and the Judge and a judicial decision has been made (stay refused) upon the strength of this agreement, and once the legal decision has been obtained the claimant has wholly to their advantage chosen to deliberately renege on the agreement.

 

There is no reason to assume that the Judge who read the application for amendment was aware of such agreement being in existence.

As of yesterday there can be no question that the Court is not now aware of this agreement and if this now means the Judge decides to revisit this application so be it.

 

This manipulation of the process by an officer of the Court has been presented to the SRA as a further contribution towards the already rather thick and lengthy dossier of complaint about the conduct of the claimants solicitors in this matter.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Annoying Twit]

I presume that since the agreement not to include the caution was given in court, that there is very hard documentary evidence of the agreement.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I presume that since the agreement not to include the caution was given in court, that there is very hard documentary evidence of the agreement.

 

We can at the moment only presume so. It's quite possible that Fred will be at the Court again shortly it's a good idea as you suggest to double check on this fact.

[Patma]

Hi everyone, as regards your thoughts, Annoying Twit, re Fred's original counterclaim. You're right the system did trip him up because he's a litigant in person and the counterclaim he wrote was indeed no sufficiently particularised. He wrote it himself because at that point in the proceedings our excellent TLD hadn't ridden over the horizon bandishing his samurai sword:D, but rest assured the new, polished, updated version, with the TLD seal of approval, is in the pipeline.

The CLS refused to be of assistance when he contacted them back in the early days when he received the claim, as did the CAB and every legal aid solicitor he approached.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Recently Freds highly skilled and dedicated team of Field Agents made a site visit to the scene of the incident just to double check a few facts, take the odd measurement etc for presentation to the Court.

 

Imagine the agents surprise to find that quite contrary to the previously held line of thought that the PCAD car park barriers are kept well maintained and are so vitally important to the security of the establishment that they must be replaced at every opportunity, the barrier was in a state of disrepair, the barrier arm was missing and security was being maintaned by a loop of chain strung loosely across from the barrier body to the cradle. The agent was shocked and took several photographs of the sorry scene as proof of this once proud barriers demise.

 

I guess the urgency with which such replacements are conducted appears to differ according to who can be perceived to be footing the bill.

 

Apparently Fred was so shocked by this discovery that he threw his car into reverse gear and shot off so suddenly that he altogether forgot to switch the engine on first and actually just rolled backwards very slowly and rather sheepishly.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wait a minute that wasn't Fred!

 

That was the smartly dressed man in the silver mercedes who was staking out Freds house a few days ago and received the shock of his life when Fred emerged from underneath the car he'd been repairing on the drive. I do hope Fred was able to take this persons registration number and forward it to the police, it sounds suspiciously like some sort of criminal casing what they believed to be an empty property to me.

[Patma]

We can at the moment only presume so. It's quite possible that Fred will be at the Court again shortly it's a good idea as you suggest to double check on this fact.

Yes very true, we will get the transcript ordered .