Cymraeg | Access Keys | Site Map | Feedback
Link to Directgov widest range of government information and services online and will open in a new browser window
Advanced search


Welsh version of this page

What's New

03 February 2012
We are celebrating the two year anniversary of this website, as part of the celebration we have launched our own TV channel where you can see our documentary films on your computer via the broadband. For some entertaining viewing.

>> Visit - Click Here

Quick Links

Civil Procedure Rules Contact Us County Court Bulk Centre Court of Protection Courts Boards Criminal Procedure Rules Fees Hearing Information from XHIBIT Job Vacancies Judgments Jury Service Money Claim Online Pay your fine online Possession Claim Online Press Releases Related Websites

Small Claims & County Court Cases

There are many people complaining about Large Law Firms abusing their resources, to ride rough-shod over individuals whio cannot afford a legal defense, cannot get legal aid, or a pro-bona solicitor to represent them.

Often they do not comply with civil procedure rules, nor do they comply with court orders from County Courts.

For some reason the judges and the court management system allow these Bastards too much latitude. They would not allow any individual to do the things that firms like Humpries Kirk of Poole and Shoosmiths solicitors of Northampton do to others in legal proceedings.

We shall be presenting evidence of how large organisations and large law firms abusing the courts process. Unfortunately the courts in the UK are not geared up to deal with fraud, pujury, other forms of misconduct and dishonesty committed by large organisations. Its easier for the judges to rule against the victims.

Case Number - 0WY00402 - TIMMS V HUNT & GILL - Wednesday 8th December 2010

We have been aware of this story for several months now, and we have been following it very closely. It involves a Dorset farmer, some people believed to be a Freemason, who has engaged the services of a firm of solicitors Humphries Kirk, to bring two neighbours to Weymouth County Court, who have no legal representation to defend a claim of damages for harassment.

It is alleged that these two neighbours, one of which runs a bird rescue centre, have been moo-ing at the farmers cows, and have supposedly actually killed one of them by doing so.

Only in Dorset could such a case end up in the courts. Anywhere else in this country people would be laughing at the thought of this.

There is plenty of evidence that the Police have provided, the only problem is that virtually none of it is relevant to the case or conclusive. We do not understand how the police are passing confidential police reports about one of the defendants having suffered child abuse when he was young, to a firm of solicitors along with other sensitive police reports.

Furthermore some of the confidential documents have been tampered with and edited. At the moment we do not know if this has been done by Dorset Police Litigation Department, headed by a Shyster Retired Copper who was bought back and given a well payed civillian job on top of his pension. Or if this has been done by Humphries Kirk solicitors. Either way, tampering with evidence in judicial proceedings amounts to misconduct.

The cow was disposed of mysteriously without a vet being called, the police did not attend, and no post-mortem was carried out.

There are however, ongoing boundary and access issues to a lane that runs between these neighbours and the farmers land. Which have caused problems between the neighbours and the farmer in the past.

The farmers solicitors will be claiming between eleven and sixteen thousand pound on Legal and Court Costs. This is a vexatious action in an attempt to gain land by trying to bankrupt one or both defendants. The farmer always claims he has no money to spend on a toxicologist report or post-mortem for the cow, so the question arises, How is he finding money to fund this case?

So far it would appear to us that the farmers solicitors have broken every rule in the book, including not abiding by rulings, protocols, and sharing of evidence / in breach of disclosure. The Court seems to have done little apart from stopping the defendants from serving further evidence, so disadvantaging them in making a proper defines. They are not on an equal footing considering the farmer has a well resourced firm of Dorset Shyster Lawyer. It could be argued that the defendants are having their human right violated under article 6 of the european human rights convention, in relation to this case.

The case number is 0WY00402 - Timms Verses Hunt and Gill and is being heard on this Wednesday 8th December 2010 over a three day period. We have concerns regarding the fairness of this trial as neither defendant can form a proper defence in the time left, as they are still waiting for unseen evidence from Humphries Kirk who fail to comply with disclosure.

These Shysters also think that because they are solicitors in Dorset they have carte blanche to commit criminal offences under section 55 & 56 of the data protection act, for disclosing confidential & sensitive police reports relating to the child abuse of one of the defendents when he was young, in the court bundle. This now forms part of the court record which would be in the public domain should anybody wish to view the court record in this case. They have also disclosed other confidential police reports relating to MR Hunt and MR Gill that are not even relevant to the central core element to the case, which is the alleged moo-ing at the farmers cows, thereby causing the death of one and causing the farmer loss. Furthermore they have also distributed these confidential police documents about MR Hunt to MR Gill and the farmer MR Timms. They have also distributed these confidential police documents about MR Gill to MR Hunt and the farmer MR Timms.

Why should these gentlemen have to have the embarrassment of what the police are saying about them distributed to others, by a Shyster Lawyer who is qualified in law and therefore knows that she is committing an indictable offence under the data protection act. It has been suggested that because Victoria Pearson is a Partner with a large firm of solicitors operating from their Poole Office, she no doubt feels protected.

Victoria Pearson

Victoria Pearson LLB - Partner - Email -

MR Hunt has reported the criminal offence of illegally disclosing these confidential police reports to the data protection commissioners office.

Victoria Pearson and Humphries Kirk solicitors are now the subject of a criminal investigation that could lead to a prosecution under section 55 & 56 of the data protection act. As a result of this if the Civil Case is not stopped pending the outcome of the investigation being carried out by the data protection commissioners office, and any subsequent prosecution that might be bought for the illegal disclosure, then this could impede, obstruct, or jeopardise the outcome of a criminal investigation and prosecution. Since criminal takes precedence over civil court actions, the judge in the civil courts thinks she can push this civil case through, with out any regard for the criminal investigation that has commenced.

We shall be reporting the misconduct taking place in this case, the judge Recorder Dowel has allowed Humphries Kirk solicitors to continue to act for MR Timms. All solicitors in the UK are officers of the court, and this sort of misconduct from these large law firms, and the criminal offences they commit are ofter ignored by judges, who are supposed to be people of integrity. We leave people to make up their own mind as to the integrity of Recorder Dowel.Clearly she is not concerned about these confidential police reports being distributed illegally by Victoria Pearson and Humphries Kirk.

On the first day of this case, the judge allowed MR Gill to make certain undertakings to the court as to what he cannot do with regard to MR Timms. Since MR Gill has never interfered with MR Timms or his property then naturally MR Gill has no objections to give undertakings for something he has never done.

Unfortunately MR Hunt is being shafted in this case by a barrister and a lawyer who have University Degrees in Law. MR Hunt is not a man of high intelligence and was unable to retain lawyers as he was denied legal aid to defend this case. Furthermore we do not believe he is getting a fair hearing in this case. If the judge is allowing these police reports to remain on the court record when they were put there illegally we doubt very much if Recorder Dowel will do anything to address the unequal balance of MR Hunt in this case. It could be argued that this case is on all fours with the european courts of human rights ruling on the McDonalds laiable case. This was a breach of article 6 of the european human rights convention, where a litigant in person was facing a highly resourced legal team.

Since MR Hunt is incapable of articulating any sort of defence, that is complant with CPR Rule 16.4(1) we will do it for him in the court of public opinion. We rely on article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention to express what we believe to be rough justice metered out to victims by the british legal system.

The Background to MR Timms Dispute

Lets take a look at MR Timms - He has a lot of past history of disputes and incidents with various neighbours. Whilst these incidents involve different people, the main common denominator in all of them is MR Timms.

He is very well connected with councillors, former councillors and other public officials. It has been alleged that this could be one reason that MR Hunt has had so many problems with Council Planning Enforcement Officers,Police Officers, and Uncle Tom Cobly un'all.

This is further alleged by other people unconnected with this case. One such person is MR Barry Talbot who alleges he was struck on the head by MR Timms wielding a Fuel Can, and Dorset Police would do nothing about this altercation with a very elderly man. As such freedom of expression protected under international law comes in, and you can see MR Talbot's allegations on the YouTube Video below.

The Conduct & Misconduct in relation to costs.

Since MR Hunt cannot articulate a proper defence he is going to get shafted in these proceedings. When it comes to the ruling on costs, the Judge, Recorder Dowel must take certain aspects of this case into consideration.

The defendant MR Hunt relies on CPR Rule 44.3(4) and CRP Rule 44.5(3). In particular the conduct of the claimant.

On the official court forms that would have been served on MR Hunt & MR Gill it states that every attempt should be made to settle this case without the need for court action. It even states on the court form that there should be "round table meetings" and negotiations" to settle the dispute between the parties.

Unfortunately Humphries Kirk think they can ignore what is printed on official court documents, they have made no attempt to bring the parties together around a table as directed on the court documents. All they have done prior to commencing these malicious proceedings, was to threaten MR Hunt & MR Gill with this civil action. Then further attempted to threaten them both into signing documentation and making undertakings whilst at the same time trying to extort large amounts of money from these two defendants by way of legal fees. They told them they had to do this in order to avoid court action. Naturally MR Hunt & MR Gill were not going to be threatened by this, and this is the main reason why MR Gill has given his undertakings to the court so that he was not being forced to pay extortionate legal costs to the Humphries Kirk.

Since Humphries Kirk know that they should have attempted to bring the parties together in an attempt to resolve the dispute without the need for court action in compliance with the printing on the official court documents, then they are in breach of the CPR Rules 44 and 45 with regard to requesting costs in this case.

The failure of these lawyers to follow correct legal protocol, their failure to agree the contents of the court bundle with the defendants in compliance with the rules on discovery, and their misconduct in relation to disclosure of sensitive police reports gives a very strong argument that the defendant MR Hunt should pay no legal costs if the judgement in this case goes against him.

Recorder Dowel did not take the conduct of the claimant and his legal team into account and properly consider CRP Rule 44.3(4) and more importantly CPR Rule 44.5(3). Not only did this Bitch ignore the misconduct of the lawyers in relation to pre action protocols, failing to agree the content of the bundle with the two defendents, who were litigants in person, failing to make every effort to resolve the case without the need of court action, as stated on the court forms the lawyers would have used in settling these proceedings, ect...

This Bitch simply ruled against MR Hunt and stuck a load of costs against him.

Recorder Dowel has also now been reported for judicial misconduct. It is reported by the defendents that the bitch Dowel was having private meetings with the barrister representing MR Timms in her chambers. He was seen going in and out on a number of occasions. This Biatch should not be sitting on the bench when she is discussing a case with a barrister privatly.


MR Hunt whilst being a litigant in person who has had educational difficulties as a child, is reliant on the help of others to put in an appeal. After putting MR Hunt to considerable trouble having all the documentation prepared and sent in, the bastards in the court management system failed to process the appeal. Instead these Shysters sent all the paperwork relating to this appeal to a member of the public who is herself a litigant in person. Not only does this action justify this website and showing the british judicial system for the bunch of overpaid shysters that they actually are, no wonder that there is a raft of complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman over these bastards.

This is another breech of the Data Protection Act by illegally disclosing this data to Phyllis Jayaratne, only this time the breech of statute law has actually been carried out by the Court Services and the British Judicial System. Do we actually have any justice in this country, or just a bunch of incompetent dishonest bastards drawing a salary for paying lip service to it?

Mrs Phyllis Jayaratne kindley contacted MR Hunt to return all his appeal documentation that was illegially sent to her. No doubt she sympathises as not oly was she a victim of racial abuse, she is also a victim of the British Judicial System that should have given her redress for what has been done. She is another person who is so outraged she has launched a website at -


Mr Hunt the sole remaining defendant in this absurd and twisted case has applied for permission for leave to appeal. The only problem is, as you will have read above, is that his appeal has been screwed up by mal administration of the Courts Service and staff.

This has now happened yet again, Mrs Sue Allport the manager of Weymouth County Court gave Mr Hunt the wrong procedural advice and direction by telling him via her staff that his appeal papers had to be sent to the Court of appeal in London when in fact they should have been sent to Winchester County Court.

Mr Hunt awaits their answer in relation to being given permission for leave to appeal. The original trial resulted in Mr Hunt being ordered to pay Mr Timms the farmer £5000 damages and close to £50,000 costs

Despite the fact that farmer Timms lawyers and Barrister Mr Michael Tomlinson of 3PB Barristers failed to follow procedural rules relating to rules of discovery, pre action protocol and disclosure of sensitive information to third parties.

The claim for damages was allegedly for making mooing noises, shouting the word “wanker” and certain other harassment including trying to run Mr Timms down with a Land Rover. There was not a shred of evidence to prove any of this other than a very badly written account by Mr Timms, who if you check our TV channel can in fact be seen trying to run over Mr Hunt with his van. The Dorset police ignored this video evidence and did nothing but it is worth remembering that Mr Timms is strongly believed to be Freemason (one of his best friends has admitted this on tape) and as such will be given preferential treatment by Dorset police, a lot of who role their trouser leg up and put on a pinny.

There are also allegations made by the defendants that certain collusion happened between farmer Timms legal team and Recorder Dowell, the trial Judge in this case.

Mr Alan Pitts of the Office of Judicial Complaints has conducted a full investigation into this allegation emanating from a complaint made to the OJC by Andrew Gill the other defendant in this case.

Mr Gills original complaint was levelled against District Judge Willis and Recorder Dowell. The allegations relating to Judge Willis were to do with biased unfairness towards the defendants, prior to the commencement of the trial relating to when Mr Gill applied to have the case struck out on the grounds of missed deadlines and abuse of process by Humphries Kirk solicitor Victoria Pearson.

The OJC dismissed this part of the complaint as they said it was not within their remit, in fact there is actually very little that is within the OJC’ s remit, they are in fact a multi million pound department manned by overpaid yes men and woman that pay lip service to the Judiciary by covering up complaints made by the General Public.

Mr Alan Pitts is one of these yes men.

He has supposedly carried out a full, proper and above all impartial investigation into the part of Mr Gills complaint that, alleged collusion by the claimants legal team with Judge Dowell, we are in possession of all letters that have passed between Mr Pitts and Mr Gill.

Mr Pitts complete investigation consists of writing to Judge Dowell, Barrister Michael Tomlinson, lawyer Victoria Pearson, the court usher Bob Blyth, the Court clerk, Sue Allport the Court manager and last but not least Mr Hunt the first defendant.

There are other issues that Mr Gill believes should add weight to his compliant regarding this alleged collusion.

One of them relates to an audio recording now in our possession that depicts a heated discussion between Mr Hunt and farmer Timms, an audio recording that Humphries Kirk denied the existence of , even though they were served with it. Mr Gill handed his copy, that Mr Hunt had served on him to the court clerk to give to Recorder Dowell at the end of the first day of trial.

Over the next few days Mr Tomlinson became aware of the contents of this recording but it was never officially handed to him in a correct and legal manner in open court by Recorder Dowell.

The only way he could have known the content of this audio disk was if he viewed or was given it in a dishonest and corrupt way.

Bearing in mind that Mr Gill, Mr Hunt and Mrs Gill had witnessed Mr Tomlinson and Victoria Pearson going in and out of a corridor that only leads to the Judges chambers, on numerous occasions and when the proceedings were not in progress, it all seems strange to say the least. Mr Hunt even tried to follow them on one occasion but was turned back by Bob Blyth the Court Usher. Why and how can this be?

Another issue is how Mr Gill was tricked into signing an undertaking not to harass Mr Timms.

On the first day of the trial Recorder Dowell informed Mr Gill that as he had decided to associate himself to Mr Hunt, he would almost certainly be liable for half of the costs in this case, so she advised him to come to some arrangement with Mr Tomlinson by way of an undertaking.

Mr Gill had two allegations of mooing, an allegation that he deposited an empty beer can in Mr Timms farm that was un witnessed and a strange allegation that he had caused a friend of Mr Timms to have an angina attack by filming him. The friend Mr John Bowditch, also known as stumpy did state as a witness this not to be true.

How can a legally qualified Judge who is supposed to impartial and at the beginning of a trial say something of this nature, it does suggest previous contact with Mr Timms legal team, as it was Mr Gill who new the ins and outs of the case, he was the claimants main obstruction into bankrupting Mr Hunt.

Mr Gill feared loosing his house so this dirty trick worked as planned.

Mr Pitts has advised Mr Gill officially by letter that nothing untoward happened over this five day trial, that was only originally supposed to be a three day trial from the outset.

In his letter that is based solely upon written responses from various previously mentioned people, he says that the door to the corridor was locked at all times, Mr Tomlinson, Recorder Dowell and Victoria Pearson all deny that they had secret meetings, also he informed Mr Gill that,” these are professional people who are above telling lies“, or words to that effect.

It can’t be proved that collusion happened in the Judges chambers but what were they doing in the corridor that leads to the Judges chamber, that was supposedly locked at all times but clearly was not. On one occasion Victoria Pearson was witnessed coming out of the corridor in tears.

Are Mr Gill, Mrs Gill And Mr Hunt all mistaken in what they saw, Mr Pitts indeed stated that in fact they were all mistaken to Mr Gill in a recorded telephone call?

Ask yourself these very basic questions.

How Did the farmers legal team get to hear the audio recorded heated discussion between him and Mr Hunt?

Why did Mr Pitts not write to Mrs Gill for her best recollections?

Why do the OJC only ever investigate judicial people, who have judicial misconduct allegations levelled at them by letter writing?

Their investigative procedures leave something to be desired, even when criminal allegations are levelled and in particular when these criminal allegations are in relation to perversion of the course of justice, a common law crime that carries with it a custodial sentence, upon conviction.

Why are these people who are no different from anyone else, getting help and protection, from the government office/ Quango that is investigating them?

It is a little bit like the police writing to the great train robbers and asking them if they did it and then excepting their written reply saying “no we didn’t do it” and then shutting down their investigation.

Mr Pitts could have referred to the trial transcript for example but did not, that would have assisted proving how the audio recording was heard.

Also in writing to these people, some of which are in the same workplace, they had the opportunity to collude with each other. Mr Hunts written account to Mr Pitts letter was brushed under the carpet and as previously mentioned, Mrs Gill was not asked for her account.

None of the legal people who were written to by Mr Pitts mentioned the audio recording issue, even though according to Mr Pitts they were asked about this in his letter.

Well Mr Pitts we believe you and your department are the Pitts.

Mr Gill has now referred his Judicial complaint to JACO, the Judicial Appointments and Complaints Ombudsman but all he has done is get the Dulux brush out like most other Government Ombudsman. Sir John Brigstocke is the Judicial ombudsman in question, his colourful career is as follows.

Adm Sir John Brigstocke, KCB, DL's - Professional Career

Hon Brigstock IMAGE 01 Images of the Overpaid Dishonest Shyster Brigstocke Hon-BHon-Brigstock Image 0202

RN: joined 1962, Cdr 1977, Capt 1982, Rear Adm 1991, Vice Adm 1995, Adm 1997; sea cmds: HMS Upton 1970-71, HMS Bacchante 1978-79, HMS York and 3rd Destroyer Sqdn 1986-87, HMS Ark Royal 1989-90, Flag Offr Flotilla Two 1991-92, Cdr UK Task Gp 1992-93, Flag Offr Surface Flotilla 1995-97; shore appts: Naval Plans MOD 1980-81 and 1982-84, Capt BRNC Dartmouth 1987-88, Asst Chief of Naval Staff and memb of Admiralty Bd 1993-95, Adm pres RNC Greenwich 1994-95, Second Sea Lord C-in-C Naval Home Cmd and memb of Admiralty Bd 1997-2000, Flag ADC to HM The Queen 1997-2000; gp chief exec St Andrew's Gp of Hosps 2000-04, judicial appts and conduct ombudsman 2006-, chm NHS East Midlands 2006-10; tstee Nuffield Tst for the Forces of the Crown 2003-; chm Cncl Univ of Buckingham 2005-08 (memb 2004-08); younger bro Trinity House; Freeman City of London; Hon DUniv Buckingham 2009Chairman, Sir John Brigstocke to retire

Sir John has today reaffirmed that, with his 65th birthday looming, he will be retiring on 1 May at the end of “four very happy and fulfilling years in the NHS; the most challenging and rewarding of my 47 years in the public, university, and charitable sectors”.

He has been in the J,A,C, Ombudsman’s job since 2006, a cushy little three day week job that really pays well (“JOBS FOR THE BOYS”) but it is a job where cover up and manipulating the truth are all in a days work, we are told.

He has deemed Mr Gill’s complaint of judicial misconduct as fully and properly investigated even though the question of how Mr Tomlinson of 3PB Barristers got to here the audio recording was not answered, notwithstanding the fact that Recorder Dowell, Michael Tomlinson and Victoria Pearson were all asked this question by Mr Pitts but according to Mr Pitts, they all failed to answer the question.

Mr Gill has now reported Sir John Brigstocke KCB to the Prime ministers office for misconduct in a public office, we doubt much will come of it but it’s the thought that counts.

There is a lot more to come regarding this story that has only been touched upon so far including Dorset Police, Weymouth and West Dorset Councillors and Council Officers involvement and interference in this Civil case.

The underlying issue that this case is really about is land, planning issues and obtaining land by bankruptcy.

Also coming soon some very strong evidence of Mr Timms committing perjury whilst under oath on the witness stand.


See how MR Ken Cook was stitched up in the Bournemouth Courts by Judge Dancey

Background:- In October I was involved in a small claims case at the Bournemouth County Court, when I took a local laptop so called specialist to court because a new Acer laptop I bought from him, seriously broke down after only 8 months normal use. He could not or would not fix it by saying there was nothing wrong with it. (The hard drive needed changing, it turned out)
Now the Judge, a reprehensible creature called Dancey, a typical upper class git, before the conciliatory hearing started, told me that he had used this man's business, but arrogantly went on to state that he thought that would not be enough to make him dismiss himself from the case. His arrogance is typical of his class.

Anyway it became apparent to me that he was indeed biased in favour of my opponent and he made an order for me to have to get an experts report on what the problem was and if I did not do this, the case would be dismissed and no full hearing would take place. How is that for an example of being biased? I foolishly decided to comply with this and that fruitless exercise cost me £140 because he also ordered that this expert had to be present at the full hearing. Quite frankly all that was like living in Russia or Hilters Germany! I always thought it was entirely up to you if you had an expert back your case. Apparently not in this court before Herr Dancey.

At the full hearing some months later, it was heard by another Stasi judge, a Judge Weintroub. Again I was subjected to bias shown to the Defendant, while I was interrupted time and again and the hearing was not as such a hearing should be, which is INFORMAL, as it was held using normal court hearing, rules of evidence procedures. This is in direct contravention of small claims rules as advertised in Court service pamphlets.

This Judge was no better and he said as I used to laptop for 8 months I was not entitled to my money back, especially as I was a 'HEAVY USER' of the laptop. What utter rubbish as I only use it for four hour a day. The experts report and evidence to the court was a complete waste of time and MY MONEY. So he threw out the case for a full refund and luckily for me I am on Pension Credits so do not pay court fees, it meant it as just the £140 I wasted and of course 8 months of my time. I did force the maker Acer to replace the hard drive as they had to under the two year warranty I had, But I am not at all convinced of the quality or how my future warranty claims if any, will be dealt with, based on this travesty.

The point about this last Judge is that he treated me in a manner and tone of voice that made me feel like I WAS THE ONE AT FAULT AND NOT THE VICTIM. HIS ARROGANCE WAS STAGGERING. He even took a warranty document I had spoken about , which I had only received just before the hearing and refused to give it back. So that meant I had to go through hoops to get the court office to give me copies of MY OWN DOCUMENT. It was my only proof of my warranty.

I was so incensed with these two bastard judges that I resolved to report them to the Office of Judicial Complaints (OJC) where it rests now. However going on past experience of this yet another useless government department, it will go nowhere.....Lay your bets now!

Now, and here is the real rub for me. I am now faced with having to defend another small claims case involving my refusal to pay your old friends, Lester Aldridges, solicitors, for a Bill of £4300 for a bungled legal job they did for me. I had already paid them £6,000 for them to represent me in an Intellectual Property Office haring and they crapped it up, they wanted me to appeal it. However their so called IP specialist even though he knew I had no more money, went ahead and commissioned a barristers report on whether an appeal would work. That is what they billed me for and I refused to pay it. So I am faced with yet another conciliatory hearing and guess who is the hearing Judge will be? No less than my old bosom mate Judge Dancey!
Not on in your wildest dreams would I get a fair hearing as required under Article 6, with that arrogant and biased bastard. So I wrote to the Court Office at Bournemouth, pointing out my concerns and that I had already reported him to the OJC an asking for it to be heard by another Judge. What do they do but go immediately to this bastard with my letter and he denies ever saying what he had said about dismissing himself. So now he is also a bloody liar as well. I wrote back to that effect and insisted I get another Judge. Again they show this letter to Dancey, the absolute arse licking creeps and now he knows exactly what I think about him and that I have laid a complaint about him before the OJC. Would anyone really think I would get a FAIR HEARING NOW??? He replies he has no comment and the hearing has to remain in (front of him)

The point is, I could just not turn up as there isn't enough time to get this overturned and he knows it, the creep. If I do that Aldridge will win and I want to wait until the full hearing which will be in March. That will give me time to arrange things as know I will not win. No Judge in my view will see a fellow judicial fellow get done in. So it looks like I will have to put up with this and the HMRC's corruption. They know they are breaching the HR Acts, article 6, but they do not care a jot for they also know that you are in no position to take action against them because you are not rich or an immigrant. So they spit in your face.

I tell you living in the UK these days is no better than living in Russia, except there you could rub them out if you knew the right people. But we the British peasants are treated like shit and walked all over by the Establishment. Talk about democracy, it is a sick joke as I am sure you are well aware of.

The continuing story of MR Ken Cook, and a dishonest law firm

Lester Aldridge shysters

Here is what happened and this is a continuation of the story already told about them.

Lester Aldridge took me to the small claims court because I refused to pay them a £4300 bill for work I did not give them authorisation to do and they did this work (if you could call it work)after I had repeatedly told them I could not afford to continue with my Intellectual Property case which they had lost for me due to their incompetence. Instead of getting a barristers opinion as to whether we could win, I was told my this young arrogant, full of himself lawyer, that he was such a good solicitor that knew what he was doing.

In other words he was so clever he did not need to get a second opinion.

So he gets trashed and then has the bloody cheek to say that he felt I had been treated badly by the Intellectual Property Office and I should appeal as I had a good case. (If it was so good why didn't he win, I hear you ask?) I was also told that in order to get an independent hearing I would have to appeal in the High Court as the IPO were obviously biased. He knew this was so as I told him so and he had all my evidence to see that.

I repeated that I could not afford to appeal at a probable cost of £25,000+. It would have to be done on a no win no fee basis. I was then told that to do it that way he would have to get a second opinion in order that his boss would sanction that. Now here is what you have to understand and this shows you what a shower lawyers generally are. At the point where I was waiting for the IPO to release their decision on our hearing, this laddie lawyer, one Mr Wallens, goes off on honeymoon. I was assured that if the decision came in while he was away not to worry as someone else knew all about it. The decision came in and he is away and I only found out it had been issued by my ringing the IPO.

No one at Lesters had informed me that it was sitting there and had been for two weeks. And here is the rub as you only get week or so to inform the IPO that you are going to appeal. That alone tells you all you need to know about the IPO that they only give you 3 weeks to decide if you can appeal. It is just too short a time to investigate all the matters, in order to make an informed decision.

So he gets back and I have a week and two days to make my mind up if I can or will appeal and if I can afford to pay £500 to get this second opinion. In fact all that week even though I had asked for a meeting in order to quickly have a discussion and make a decision, it was never given me and I was forced to engage in sending and receiving many emails on the ins and outs. I never thought that I was going to get charged for this as we could have as I say sorted it all in half an hour for £75.

Remember that I had already paid out just over £6,000 for nothing and they knew I had had to borrow this off a friend as I had NO MONEY! I agreed to pay £500 as thought I could borrow that again. It was now at the end of the week and we had only til the following Tuesday to get our decision to appeal in and that week end was a Bank holiday. So you can imagine I was being put under extreme pressure to agree to all this. The decision from the barrister was that yes we had a good case but essentially the IPO could ignore our arguments on appeal.

So Big Boss of Lesters says NO to a no win no fee!! No mention of the fact from the barrister that as it would be at the High Court and in front of an independent judge and not some asshole from the IPO, so we should have a good chance of winning so OK we will do it on a NWNF. I obviously tell them that I told them I had no money to go along on my non existent money. End of story. I then get a bill off them for £4300 for a bunch of about 10 emails and the barrister bill is now swollen to £1500. What do you think I told them? So I gets summoned for this bill and first of all we have to appear at a so called 'conciliation hearing' This is so a Judge can try and get us to do a deal and save the court a full hearing.

In my submission statements I bluntly restated I had no money and provided the proof of that in all the emails where I had said it. The Judge even said he did not know why Lester Aldridge was still adamant in going after someone they knew had no money and even if they won how were they going to get their money? Well your Honour it's because they are avaricious assholes bent on revenge or whatever. They will not let up and insist on a full hearing.

Now in their evidence bundle they included EVERY scrap of paper generated in the IPO case already held and paid for. They then put this in for a SECOND TIME just before the hearing date in March 2011. I knew why they were doing this and it was to put into the domain so much crap that a lot of judges would despair as this after all is a SMALL CLAIMS CASE not a bloody huge civil case of huge proportions, normally held in a County Court. I front up at the appointed time and immediately the Judge says he has simply not had time to read all this as he only got the papers a short time before.

That alone tells you how crap our Courts are and how dysfunctional they are, but there is worse to come. He says he just cannot go ahead without full understanding what is in this huge bundle and there will have to be yet another hearing. I protest telling him that all that bundle is about another case which has nothing to do with the £4300 they say I owe for a completely different affair.

I tell him that they are trying it on and only want to confuse him with matters that aren't even about this case. I want to go ahead right now and get this done. He ignores my request. He then goes into a loud conversation of an extremely friendly nature with the two asshole lawyers of Lester (why they had to have two, I guess so they can bump up the costs which are now adding another £2K to the bill they think they are going to get?) He admits he too is a lawyer and seems to know these two. I am told that there cannot be another hearing until about May or even June as the Courts are extremely busy. That suits me as I had planned to get away that very day on a months trip up North to my son and grandson.

I had also had planned a move from the flat I was in the day before and I would not bother to look for a new flat until I got back. So a month later I get back, I call at my old flat on a Friday to get any mail and I have letter saying that the following Monday April 11th there will the new hearing. problem for me is that I had managed to fix up a new flat into which I was moving on the Sat 9th April. Also whilst I had been up North I had been suffering all that time with horrendous back ache. Over the weekend I was so preoccupied with moving in and what other stuff I had yet to do over the forthcoming week and that my first job was to get urgently into a doctors about my back, and thus it was that on the Monday I had completely forgot about the new and EARLIER court appearance.

So I guess Lester won by default and all because I was misled by the Court Service as to when I could expect the new date. I guess that had been firmly implanted into my brain and what with the other stuff taking it over, you forget. However no problem as I did not expect any Judge to side with me or for me to win and the cosy chat I witness backed that feeling up. Lester Aldridge cannot get blood out of a stone and they will have to work somewhat to get my new address and even if they do I have nothing anyway.

This story tell you all about asshole lawyers and their cronies in the Courts and the dysfunctional way the Court Service works. Remember how I had been treated in the run up to this anyway by them. I only got treated better by the earlier Judge because I reported him over not taking himself off that hearing due to the fact I had reported him, as reported in my previous story about this case. Now to my other example of crap, robbing lawyers and this concerns another bunch of idiots and rip off merchants called Humphries Kirk (a compnay already mentioned on this site as have Lester Aldridge.

After the Intellectual Property case in which Lester Aldridge had ripped me off of £6K for nowt, I continued on my own to try and get justice somehow, I needed to know the definitive answers to a dozen points of IP Law, I did not want and couldn't anyway, go back to Lesters, so I researched locally who also had an IP section and these people had a branch in Poole who did IP.

I sent them an email with this list and asked if they could simply answer them and how much. They sent me an email saying they could and send £250 for this, which I did. The answers I eventually got back were pathetic as they quite obviously were too thick to understand the questions and the answers were rubbish and did not answer 10 of the questions and of the two they were only half answered. The useless bastards, so I try again by sending in the questions in more simple language.

They refuse to answer them and become very difficult by saying they need me to give them all the surrounding facts of my cases with the IPO even tho' I had told them I had no ongoing cases ansd the questions are about basic law. I refuse to do this and tell them that they should be able to answer these simple general questions. They respond by sending me a bill for around another £450. Remember they had quoted £250 and had said they COULD answer those questions which they had upfront.

The cheek of some lawyers knows no bounds and they are still whistling for that extra money but I got done AGAIN, for I think £250 for two questions half answered is a RIPP OFF. Thanks and I leave the above with you if you can use.

Ken Cook - Blog -

These shysters Lester Aldridge had their snouts in the Dorset Rate Payers Pot keeping litigation running for their own benefit against Mr Coulter & Barry Hunt. To see the hatchet job on MR Hunt - Click Here