The DWB Case lost in Court

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:08 pm

What really happened is here. Copies of this submission were sent to Bennison who passed it on to Bowley and J. Please and either enjoy or be shocked. I'm out of here.

Mr Bennison,

Here is copy of correspondence sent to Mr J. He has failed respond to each separate email and thus cannot now pretend that anything written here is either untrue or inaccurate.

I should add that the solicitor who represented Newham, Newlyn and the bailiff at the recent hearing - has confirmed that he has sent a copy of this to the trial judge with a view to having Mr J face a further hearing in order to explain why he was untruthful in court whilst on oath.

You will also note that both you and your sycophantic ‘forum’ rabble were all entirely incorrect in your joint appreciation and understanding of the reality of the situation, or as I said to Mr J in this correspondence – that given how easily he fooled you and also given that you never thought to check his story before foolishly going public to your own self-abasement – you were hardly the best choice for legal representation.

As for that vitriolic idiot from Birmingham who unwisely used the term ‘Vile’ amongst other ill thought attempted insults when shooting himself in the foot, he might now reflect on the fact that if there was ever a person who could be accurately be described as vile – it would be him.

R.J. Clark
11th May 2016



J

I am not surprised to see that that no response has been received as it is difficult to imagine what form that might have taken given that the information contained within the letter is not only 100% accurate, but that it also exposes your crude and wholly misleading one dimensional attempt to gain credibility and sympathy at the expense of those on whom you would like to deflect the responsibility for your own self induced misfortune.

Nor have you done any favours to the members of the toxic ‘forum’ rabble who too readily jumped on the bandwagon in order to stupidly support a person which if they have any sense at all, they would now be seriously doubting. Indeed you have managed to make their malignant and unsupportable comments look even more embarrassingly pathetic for them. However they can take responsibility for their own illthought comments.

Together you all take on the mantra of less than intelligent people who enter a darkened room with no light bulb, no windows and a door that seals behind them in their hopeless quest to find a person dressed in black and who isn’t there, but who in their warped imaginations they claim to have found.

A second letter is now being sent with a few alterations to correct typos.

It really doesn’t matter whether you respond or not – I’m not really interested for as I have said – in the event of a failure to respond, this now carries on without you and your new found best friends.

In short - don’t start anything insulting and poisonous that you cannot complete.

R.J. Clark
4th May 2016


To J

From R.J. Clark

3rd May 2016


I sent two emails to you last week asking you who created an invoice dated 11th October 2011 which you used in your trial bundle in the recent county court case A48YP288 and which you attributed to me. As I have received no response, perhaps I might be permitted to refresh your memory.

First – you and I both know that I had nothing to do with that invoice and that in reality I played no part in the case which as its reference number suggests was first lodged in 2014 three years after we last spoke or corresponded. I have never invoiced you and ceased dealing with you in July 2011. For your convenience a copy of this invoice lies on page 2.

It contains several anomalies which is unsurprising given that it was falsely created by you long after the invented date of 2011 and appears to be a flag of convenience in order to boost the value of your claim. This is called fraud and the opposing solicitor is well aware of that and the fact that having used it as evidence in court – you could also be prosecuted for perjury. Again did you not think of the consequences of allowing this fraudulent document to not only be placed on a public website by a well documented liar as a means of deflecting blame from his latest court failure, but to also unwittingly bring more justified criticism back on to yourself. Had you just let the matter remain private, then there would have been no need for any damning reaction. In short, the aftermath which now exposes your part in all of this could have been avoided.

As a result of your foolish act you have opened the door for the gullible idiots on a toxic ‘forum’ to naively attempt to discredit me whilst you stepped aside and let them carry on. Gullible is an accurate and kind description of those who you fooled on there including the person who you engaged to assist you in court last month. Did you not think that if you could pull the wool over his eyes so easily after he failed to check the authenticity of your ‘invoice’, then he was hardly the person best suited to assist you? Little wonder you lost in court.

This ‘invoice’ does not stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny. The contact phone quoted number did not exist in 2011 – it was only first given to me by BT in June 2012. Further the date quoted of 11th October 2011 was when the case 0BO01964 in the name of S was still active. You sent me those court papers in July 2011 wherein Mr S was given notice of a hearing in his name scheduled to take place at Bow County Court on 28th October 2011. Papers in my possession show that LB Newham prepared a further statement after that date on 19th November 2011, so Mr S’s case was still running at least 4 months after I had served notice that I no longer wished to be part of a case that was clearly being run by you but in the name of S

Therefore as you were not the Claimant then you would not expect to receive an invoice in your name dated October 2011 and at the expense of Mr S for whom you have failed to produce any invoice for in relation to this latest court case The evidence shows that you concocted this invoice for your own gain in order to pursue a fresh claim which commenced in 2014. You know that there was no claim by J in 2011

If you are ever tempted to create another false invoice may I suggest that you at least pay attention to the basic inclusions required to make it look authentic.




This invoice contains other errors ie basic arithmetic which the gullible fools on the toxic ‘forum’ slovenly attributed to me. 5 hours at £35ph adds up to £175 and not £210, or did you mean 6 and then forgot to correct your typing error? Had I sent that invoice to you, surely you would have checked it and pointed out that simple error?

You then refer to ‘case law’. As my area of knowledge is wholly concerned with parking enforcement laws and you were happy to accept that as confirmed in paragraph 70 of ‘Mr S’s’ statement dated 5th July 2011 clearly drafted by you, and as parking enforcement laws fall outside of the judicial court procedure, ‘case law’ had no relevance to seeking compensation for the removal of your car via Newlyn bailiffs. Thus there would have been no need to study ‘case law’ – and yet in a statement dated 28th March 2013 there are no less than 51 references to case law dating back to 1587. This wild and unconvincing overuse of historic case law was a classic tactic of one Jason Bennison whom I understand accompanied you in court on A48YP288.

‘Case law’ was then added to by investigating ‘how and where the vehicle was sold’. Again the only point at issue was that having sold the car, Newlyn placed its employers (LB Newham) under an obligation to compensate you for the value of it. How and where it was sold was irrelevant. Your 2014 actions confirmed that it was sold by A1 Environmental of Waltham Cross who in their own words specialise in disposing of ‘ex council cars’ and via ebay under the name Baldric 333. Thus the £770 you placed on this invoice was entirely false as it never happened.

We then come to the alleged preparation of appendices. Appendices are merely attachments of papers that already exist. Further the invoice bears a remarkable resemblance to the receipt you made out to Mr S for the alleged sale of the car in July 2010. The fonts are similar as is the layout with their use of blocks to contain descriptions. That of course brings into question as to whether this receipt was genuine or fiction. As the council stated in its Defence of 19th November 2011, ‘The Claimant provided a self created sales receipt stating that the vehicle was purchased for the sum of £8,500. This is the only proof of ownership that has been provided; there is no proof of money changing hands’. Indeed there isn’t as neither Mr Sehmi nor you ever provided sight of a cashed cheque or copy of any bank transaction for this ‘sale’. Given the importance of the proof of sale which was central to your claim, you must have realised that this should have been a priority and that without any proof of any transfer of funds, your claim could only be considerably weakened. Did your court representative not point out this pivitol requirement to you?

Just like your smoke and mirrors theatre act of concocting an invoice for £1720 and then presenting this false document to a court of law with the unforeseen effect that one member of this toxic’ forum’ whose capacity for imagination appears to exceed his intelligence then moronically assumed that you had forwarded a cheque for £1720 to me. Beware that this member so teems with obnoxious opinions that his brain has little room left for any facts to support them. History shows that when facts do intrude such as in this letter, they signally fail to support his opinions with the result that he chooses to ignore them whenever possible. In this case you know no money ever changed hands then between us or between yourself and Sehmi over the transfer of this car. Little wonder that the V5 was never transferred either.

LB Newham’s Defence went on to add that by 19th November 2011, you (and not Mr Sehmi) had racked up 20 PCNs to the value of £2660 (before bailiff fees) of which 15 were in the hands of bailiffs. Whilst there are monumental gaps in the council’s defence which could easily have been exposed, the fact is you are a serial collector of PCNs in your disdain for parking regulations. You then feel that you can avoid paying them by trying to hoodwink others into believing that you are a victim rather than the perpetrator when you had no intention of either obeying regulations or paying for these PCNs. It is difficult to refute the council’s case here.

Perhaps I can also assist you on the chronology of events. Your first PCN from LB Newham was dated 17th December 2008 and the second was issued on 23rd December 2008. Your car was taken by Newlyn on the 9th October 2010 and two days later Newlyn wrote to you (twice) and stated that they would release the car in return for payments of £851.24 and £466.34 respectively – totalling £1317.58. They also made it clear that if such payment was not received within 7 days ie by 18th October, the car would be sold at auction. One would imagine that this was a probability which should have been avoided had there been any alternative.

On the face of it there was a very clear alternative, but puzzling events had already commenced by 30th September 2010 when a company known as Street Jam Records emailed Mr S and instructed him to prepare a music video that needed to be completed by 18th October. That company also confirmed that it had sent Mr Sehmi a cheque for £3000 with a balance of £1100 to be paid on completion of the video. A pro forma invoice from WOW Productions attributable to Mr S’s address but with the email address of info4wowproductions@gmail.com which is not to dissimilar to your email address of info4tex@gmail.com was produced on 1st October and it asked for cheques to be made payable to i.

Emails then show that on 6th October Mr S acknowledged receipt of a 75% deposit via a cheque made payable to him and towards an invoice total of £4100. This acknowledgment of receipt was sent via email to a Mr N of Street Jam Records ostensibly trading from an address in Truro and whose contact name was J at email address info4tex@gmail.com. On 9th October the car Street Jam Records requested for use in the video was seized by bailiffs. On the 12th Mr S sent an email to Street Jam Records informing that company that the car had been taken by bailiffs. On the same day Mr Newman stated that unless WOW Productions could complete the order by 15th October, it should refund his deposit of £3000.

There is an undated hand written note on the pro forma invoice that states ‘Invoice cancelled - deposit returned’ though again there is no proof that a cheque for this amount was sent nor any note of any cheque number or any fresh credit note created that would have been necessary to form the basis of balancing the account.

Already there are questions to be asked regarding the various anomolies about this contract and its subsequent cancellation, but there is one that stands head and shoulders above all the others. It is this - given that the sequence of events revealed that a cheque for £3000 was supposedly in the hands of the purported car owner some three days before it was seized, why - instead of using some of that £3000 to release the car and fulfil the contract at which point another £1100 would have been paid – was the cheque returned? Had £1317 of the funds already in hands of Mr S been used, the car would have been returned before filming day of 15th October and contract would have been fulfilled. Instead – if events as recorded are to be believed - the one chance to have the car returned and to honour the contract and gain by around £2800 by filming with it were thrown away. This beggars both belief and credulity.

A statutory declaration was completed on 12th October 2010, and it is limited to the loss of the car. It does not mention seizure or any loss of income that was about to take place.

Filming day of 15th October 2010 was taken up by Mr S ostensibly writing to the Chief Executive of LB Newham giving the Authority until 22nd October to return the car. Whilst this letter outlines in the broadest terms the likelihood of a claim for lost income, it does not mention the impossibility of fulfilling a contract with Street Jam Records that should have happening at the very moment the letter was being composed. A claim numbered 0BO1771 for £14,950 was taken out by Mr S at Bow County Court on 22nd October 2010. The loss of £4100 does not form part of the claim. On 17th November another letter was sent to LB Newham and again there is no mention of the loss of £4100 which if it had occurred was still only a month old and would have still been fresh in the memory

Five months then pass before a request on a website called peopleperhour.com advertises for a solicitor on 13th April 2011 to represent ‘us’ at a hearing due to take place on 6th May 2011. The owner of this website is again listed as J and clearly on 13th April neither Mr S nor you had anybody to assist you in court on 6th May. By your own words that firmly rules out the latter day claim that Jason Bennison had been consulted and engaged as early as late 2010.

I was first engaged in April 2011 and came to court to assist you on 6th May 2011. I had no dealings with either you or Mt S before 13th April 2011. Again there was no mention of a Jason Bennison either verbally during this period or in any paperwork provided - had there been I would not have taken on the assignment. I was paid £400 to continue on with a case started by Mr Sehmi and for which he wanted representation in order to have a Newham application for quashing a £15,050 default judgment against the Authority set aside. This one off fee included preparation of an 80 paragraph statement, a daily fee for attendance in a court in excess of 100 miles from where I reside and the cost of a return second class train fare. The case was adjourned that day and we sat in a café across the road where you bought me lunch.

A further £25 fee was later charged to alter the statement in lieu of the defence presented in court by Newham’s barrister Mr G. Part of that amended statement included an invoice for £1161 made out to Mr S and sent with a note that included the following comments

‘Finally I am sending an invoice to you – not for £425 but for £1161. (Lowest grade solicitors are £105 per hour). You need not be alarmed as you are not being asked to pay it. It exists so that if the court awards costs against LB Newham for this hearing, the invoice represents what LB Newham should expect have to pay and of course you can deduct £425 from it as being yours after they have paid you the £1161.

You should send a copy of this invoice to LB Newham before Friday as a courtesy and in order to forewarn them’.

In short it was prepared in order to allow Mr S to ask for costs that were more compatible with fees that might have been charged by other professionals engaged in court work. This invoice was of no concern to you and there was no obligation for Mr S to pay me anything either. Indeed I have never invoiced you, as my client was always Mr S.

As late as 5th July 2011, you prepared statement that contained the following comments P70) ‘After the 31st March 2011 court hearing was cancelled as a result as of the Defendant’s application to have judgment set aside the Claimant had to seek more specialist advice in terms of the law as it relates to parking enforcement and therefore enlisted the services of Mr Ron Clark’ which of course confirms that we had no dealings together prior to April 2011 and that no other person had been consulted.

P72) lists my fees as £1293 and whilst I have no idea where this figure came from, it is still far less the £1720 later claimed. Further the £1293 was being referred as Mr S’s debt and not yours.

P73) goes on to add ‘The services of Mr Ron Clark will be enlisted again closer to the date of the trial’. That would suggest that my experience was an asset in July 2011 and that no other consultant was required. However it was around this time that I felt that I was being misled, whilst other differences that surfaced that month led me to withdraw from this case – having never invoiced you. The only invoice I sent is shown here – and that was the one drawn up to allow Mr S to claim fees that were more compatible with his court case

Invoices will not load up - too bad I'm off to watch telly. There is enough here for people to draw their own conclusions

mod here - just removing big blank space

I trust that this review of what happened all those years ago helps you to regain your memory and that you might learn the lesson that those who attempt to rewrite history to enhance their false claims always suffer for their selfish and inverted actions.


R.J. Clark

jasonDWB
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:43 am

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby jasonDWB » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:32 pm

I think he is referring to the Johnson case. http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3630

I didn't even represent him.

Sheila Harding
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Sheila Harding » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:53 am

jasonDWB wrote:I think he is referring to the Johnson case. http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3630

I didn't even represent him.


Stop telling lies Mr Bennison. There is a court JUDGMENT confirming that you represented Mr Johnstone as a McKenzie Friend. I will post a copy up in the morning.

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:12 am

Now let me understand this. When I do not represent a person in a case, its good reason in Bennison world to keep dragging it up over a period of 5 years at every opportunity to try and discredit me - and yet when Bennison falsely claims that he did not represent somebody just over a year ago, it is given as a reason for him to claim immunity.

Further it wasn't me who named Tex Johnson. Bennison also had the audacity to initially blame me for his failure. His sycophants joined in a loud chorus on the website and Bennison being the nice fair minded person he is, then posted copies of confidential emails I sent to him and not for the first time.

However when I sent this long summation of the history of the case to him, he did not either post that or respond to it.

Now in last ditch attempt to hold on to the credibility that he imagines he has, he quickly responds to this thread.

Let the people judge for themselves

Ronnie J
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:27 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Ronnie J » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:59 am

Sheila Harding wrote:
jasonDWB wrote:I think he is referring to the Johnson case. http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3630

I didn't even represent him.


Stop telling lies Mr Bennison. There is a court JUDGMENT confirming that you represented Mr Johnstone as a McKenzie Friend. I will post a copy up in the morning.


I might add Sheila that Mr Johnson has gone on record as stating that Mr Bennison represented him free of charge as a solicitor would not take it on (It's easy to get a solicitor though, just ask the Quatloos regulars). Mr Johnson further stated that Mr Bennison then stayed on to give support the following day.

Finally Sheila, Mr Johnson was highly critical of you, suggesting that you had helped the bailiff company. A company that I know for sure that you are exceptionally friendly with.

I really don't think that you are the right person to be chastising Mr Bennison over this case.

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:01 am

Wot no comment on this case Mark?

But then you did receive a copy of these emails back in May and failed to comment on them back then.

Either the information contained in them is true or it isn't and lets face it, you are never slow in making abusive criticisms that you invent all the time as you have just shown on the 'Ron Clark' thread and under a false name forced on you because you have been banned from this site.

As for identity - are you really too stupid to realise that ALL your posts use the same formula? You are the modern day equivalent to Carbon the Copy Cat 'he tried and tried the best he know how, but it always came out miaow'.

You know Jason lost and that the scheme works.

Ronnie J
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:27 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Ronnie J » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:08 am

Detroit Express 20 wrote:Wot no comment on this case Mark?

But then you did receive a copy of these emails back in May and failed to comment on them back then.

Either the information contained in them is true or it isn't and lets face it, you are never slow in making abusive criticisms that you invent all the time.


You sent them to every man and his dog, in a desperate attempt to get them published somewhere. It was quite amusing at the time.

Now, months after the event, you have finally succeeded in your aim (by posting them yourself :haha: )

It is testament to your mental deficiency that you think anyone is going to bother reading more than the first 2 or 3 lines of that drivel-I certainly never have, I just enjoy it because it is obviously something very important to you in that crazy little world you live in.

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:09 am

Tex Johnson always criticised everybody but himself. That is why he lied in court

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:12 am

They were sent to Bennison who took it upon himself to send them to you without permission.

If you didn't read beyond the first three lines you are hardly in a position to make any comment on the rest.

jasonDWB
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:43 am

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby jasonDWB » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:39 am

Sheila Harding wrote:
jasonDWB wrote:I think he is referring to the Johnson case. http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3630

I didn't even represent him.


Stop telling lies Mr Bennison. There is a court JUDGMENT confirming that you represented Mr Johnstone as a McKenzie Friend. I will post a copy up in the morning.


You do not have a judgment saying I represented Mr Johnson.

I was at court for one day of his trial. I didn't even prepare his claim. I simply attended the final day to hear the judgment as Mr. Johnsons request. He confirms all that on the above-mentioned thread.

Why do you insist on lying Sheila?

jasonDWB
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:43 am

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby jasonDWB » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:39 am

Detroit Express 20 wrote:Tex Johnson always criticised everybody but himself. That is why he lied in court


How do you know?

You weren't even there.

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:44 am

Because you idiot ,your lap dog Bowley said so in a previous post and the opposing solicitor has confirmed to me that he has reported Johnson's court conduct to the judge.

I can take it that you were there - even though you denied representing him but then you weren't at the Andrews case and yet still promote yourself as the expert on this old case. You even said that the judge 'lampooned me'. How disrespectful to the judge

Still unable to dispute the facts posted?

Ronnie J
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:27 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Ronnie J » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:03 am

Detroit Express 20 wrote:Because you idiot ,your lap dog Bowley said so in a previous post and the opposing solicitor has confirmed to me that he has reported Johnson's court conduct to the judge.

I can take it that you were there - even though you denied representing him but then you weren't at the Andrews case and yet still promote yourself as the expert on this old case. You even said that the judge 'lampooned me'. How disrespectful to the judge

Still unable to dispute the facts posted?


The opposing solicitor thinks you're a prat as well.

You talk as though you are involved with him. He probably passed a message to you through Sheila, because you were of use to him. You are going on as if you had just met royalty, you pathetic little old fool. :haha:

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:34 am

Oh he's said far worse about me, but in respect of this case he sent an email that contained the following comments

'I have to say I find it breathtaking that they continue to peddle opinions which are discredited every time we go to court.

The other interesting point is the rather strange interpretation of judgements that Jason appears to adopt. I have obtained a transcript one particular judgement which doesn't go anywhere close to what Jason says it says!



Kind regards'

Being called a prat by somebody who is continually abusive is hardly a criticism. More of a compliment. Is that the best you have got

jasonDWB
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:43 am

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby jasonDWB » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:45 am

That would be Peter Felton Gerber.

Every time he talks to a solicitor, he mentions my name, often derogatorily

Nearly every time he defends an unlawful bailiff action at court, he mentions my name. Even in proceedings I have had no connections with.

He even contacts other people to find out whether I am involved in a particular case.

He complains again when his original complaints about me are 'communicated' back to me.

He was quick to plug Sheila when he passed her information about proceedings in progress, and she published cryptic clues about it on the internet (using another false alias).

I've not worked out what he is trying to achieve with all that.

His motive is because I have brought successful claims against a bailiff company that he represents.

Detroit Express 20
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Detroit Express 20 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:54 am

Well you mentioned his name. Stop bleating about him mentioning you in derogatory fashion, that is his style. He does it to me. Its not illegal.

So let's get this straight - if he called me a prat that's fine, but if he does it to you - its unfair.

No need to say any more
Last edited by Detroit Express 20 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

jasonDWB
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:43 am

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby jasonDWB » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:07 am

I didn't say making derrogative comments is illegal.

I think his behaviour and attitude towards me is borne out of acrimony. He a solicitor and I am not. Yet I can bring successful cases to court against his client bailiff company.

Even with Johnson losing his claim, Peter charged over £30k in fees. He knew it was a hopeless case getting that kind of money out of Johnson because he had already lost his livelihood to the bailiff company.

I don't know whether the bailiff company swallowed the £30K fees, or Peter took it on the chin. The bailiff company could have settled for just £12K but chose to fight it and lost £30K.

User avatar
Skeleton
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 am
Location: Thailand

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby Skeleton » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:13 am

This is getting ridiculous, this squabble is now spread across at least three threads.

Do us all a favour and take it somewhere else.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby NYGman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:30 pm

This link was posted in the now locked thread, but I am bringing it over here, because it is direct and to the point http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

The logic of this letter applies to JasonDWB, Shelia, or anyone else charging for legal type services, and navigating procedures, and court filings are legal services in my mind. It states in part emphasis added by me

Clients of fee-paid McKenzie Friends have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. Our members have witnessed the damage done by the unscrupulous, so we very much welcome any steps that bring clarity to the support that a McKenzie Friend can give.'

Jonathan Smithers added:

'Cuts to legal aid have left many people unable to afford professional legal advice when they need it. But it is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Non-professionals who charge for legal services should not view such exceptional circumstances as being a business opportunity.'

'Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. McKenzie friends are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Those who can afford legal advice will always get better value for money by instructing a solicitor or other legal professional.

McKenzie Friends are non-professionals who offer their services in court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'. The name McKenzie Friend name comes from a 1970 divorce case - McKenzie v McKenzie.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: The DWB Case lost in Court

Postby AndyPandy » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:42 pm

NYGman wrote:This link was posted in the now locked thread, but I am bringing it over here, because it is direct and to the point http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

The logic of this letter applies to JasonDWB, Shelia, or anyone else charging for legal type services, and navigating procedures, and court filings are legal services in my mind. It states in part emphasis added by me

Clients of fee-paid McKenzie Friends have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. Our members have witnessed the damage done by the unscrupulous, so we very much welcome any steps that bring clarity to the support that a McKenzie Friend can give.'

Jonathan Smithers added:

'Cuts to legal aid have left many people unable to afford professional legal advice when they need it. But it is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Non-professionals who charge for legal services should not view such exceptional circumstances as being a business opportunity.'

'Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. McKenzie friends are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Those who can afford legal advice will always get better value for money by instructing a solicitor or other legal professional.

McKenzie Friends are non-professionals who offer their services in court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'. The name McKenzie Friend name comes from a 1970 divorce case - McKenzie v McKenzie.


So to be a McKenzie friend doesn't necessarily mean you sit next to them in Court, it's anyone who is NOT legally qualified, who 'offers their services in court proceedings'.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest