It was almost 30 years ago but the passage of time has done nothing to diminish my contempt, outrage, and utter hatred for, the totally oppressive, tyrannical and corrupt legal and judicial system that we, the British public, have become lumbered with.
To have someone who you considered a friend set you up for a mean and nasty con trick which caused you the loss of everything that you had in this world, is difficult enough to accept, but, to live with the knowledge that he was aided and abetted in his deceptions by the likes of professional, people,- surveyors, lawyers and judges, – people who we, the public are supposed to respect, – and to know that they damaged your own and your loved ones lives solely because of their greed for money, is something that never ever leaves you.
It is inexcusable and unforgivable. As the Bible tells us, it is not money, but the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.
“All the world’s a stage and each must play their part”. – and – “You wont beat the system”
The cast in order of appearance were
DENNIS BOTTOMLEY.—- The most deceitful, unscrupulous, treacherous and devious individual it has ever been my misfortune to meet, entered my life when I was working as a small works builder on a job opposite his home at that time back in 1984. He went to a lot of trouble to get to know me and try to ingratiate himself in to my circle of family and friends. Over the course of time he took me in completely and I looked upon him as a friend. He told me that he was buying three derelict cottages from the Bradford Council which would come with a government improvement grant and that he wanted me, his mate, to do the work because I got stuck into the job and didn’t go lunchtime boozing like a lot of his other builder mates did.
He proposed a verbal contract to me which seemed fair to both of us and I agreed and accepted it, blissfully unaware that I was being set up for a con trick. Time has revealed that he had no intention of honoring his side of the agreement and when, at the end of the job he reneged on it, I had little choice but to seek justice through the courts.
I was not to know that it would take me almost five years to get him before a court during which time, the debts plus bank interest rates on the debts which he had incurred me, caused me the loss of my home and property and, due to the poverty and stresses which all of this caused, the deterioration of my marriage into divorce.
NICHOLAS P LUTY —- of the firm, Kenningham Underwood Armstrong solicitors, in Bradford, was the legal executive, now solicitor, who aided and abetted Bottomleys deceptions by procuring legal aid certificates for Bottomley and his wife on a pack of lies, without checking the veracity of these lies, and, when I sent him the relevant receipts and photographs in proof of these lies/deceptions, he refused to inform the legal aid board as was his duty and a mandatory condition of the Legal Aid Board’s own rules and regulations .
LEGAL AID FORM CLA14 – REASON FOR DISCHARGE OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13…
“The assisted person has knowingly made an untrue statement in furnishing material information concerning matters other than his/her resources.”
All of these lies, some being conceded to, and the rest rejected by, a court five years later, is the proof beyond doubt that every one of those lawyers and professional witnesses who received a share of the £32,000 which was procured for Bottomley to enable him to evade a debt of just £6,173, were paid from public funds gained by fraud and deception.
PAUL S WITHEY —- This man was the surveyor who sought to aid and abet Bottomleys deceptions by authoring a 7 paged ‘expert’ report based on those deceptions, and which was such a pack of lies from start to finish that it might as well have been authored by Bottomley himself!!! It contained all of the false claims that Bottomley was making, and wanted a court to believe, at that time.
At the court hearing almost five years later, judge Arthur Hutchinson had very little choice but to reject the evidence of Paul S Withey, which he did, “With regret and no small measure of embarrassment”
In rejecting the evidence of Paul S Withey, he, in effect, rejected the whole of the original fabricated Defence and Counterclaim, which had been produced shortly thereafter, and had been based on the Withey report, and had formed the ‘pleaded case’.
In this country the police sensibly and rightfully consider that the evidence ‘nearest to the event’ is the strongest possible evidence of all, so what on earth was Hutchinson playing at in rejecting this kind of evidence in favour of a conflicting fairy story, concocted on the steps to the court, almost 5 years later???
JOHN WALFORD —-was the barrister who authored the Defence and Counterclaim document which, because it was based on the Withey report, was also a complete fabrication from start to finish but, just like the Withey report it contained all of the false claims which were intended to be Bottomleys ‘pleaded case’ at that time.
MICHAEL RYAN —- was the solicitor supposedly acting for me who did nothing to progress my case for two and a half years despite the fact that I had supplied him with all of the receipts and photographs in proof of Bottomleys deceptions which had fraudulently gained him his legal aid certificates.
GORDON SHELTON ……was the barrister who Michael Ryan, after two and a half years, finally engaged to give an ‘opinion’ on the case. He told me that Mr Withey was a well respected expert in the courts and that if I had the temerity to question his report, I would be laughed out of the court. He did however instruct Michael Ryan to get our own expert report.
COLIN JARVIS….. was the building consultant engaged to inspect the property and relevant documents and then issue a report. He made an honest and impartial report which conflicted with the Withey report throughout and he concluded his report by stating, “We are of the opinion the retention held by Mr & Mrs Bottomley is in the circumstances, totally unreasonable.”
Shortly after the production of this report I attended a conference with barrister Gordon Shelton, solicitor Michael Ryan and building consultant, Colin Jarvis. Despite having our own expert counter report, Shelton still insisted that Withey was a well respected expert in the courts and when I turned to Colin Jarvis for support, he shrugged his shoulders and said that Withey was more of an expert than himself! Shelton told me that he would recommend the withdrawal of my own legal aid certificate.
P, H. GREGORY …. After three years of their dragging things out, without any progress, to escape what I perceived to be a Bradford cabal of lawyers and their fellow professionals, I engaged solicitors in Manchester and it was at this time, three years after the start of litigation, that an expert report was procured from this structural engineer which claimed that the roof to Bottomleys cottage could “collapse without being subjected to its full imposed snow load”.
CRAIG SEPHTON was the barrister who at a conference in Manchester disregarded the Withey report as “having a number of weaknesses” and then seized upon this new report to recommend that my own legal aid certificate be withdrawn. —– Craig Sephton was wrong to rely upon this report because, as the passage of time has shown, the roof is still there exactly as I left it 30 years ago!!!
JOHN WALFORD —- the barrister who had authored Bottomleys pleaded case almost five years earlier also represented him in court. He stood by and remained mute while Bottomley put claims of contract and inducements to contract to the court which conflicted with much of the pleaded case which he had personally authored.
There can be no excuse for John Walford in not noticing this conflict of evidence since during the course of the hearing, he received £500 per day to refresh himself on the evidence.
ANDREW THOMPSON —- This man was the barrister who stood in for John Walford on the last day of the hearing, and, immediately before the judges summing up, sprang to his feet and conceded the counterclaim with regard to the items which Bottomley had claimed in his evidence to the court to having supplied towards the works.
ARTHUR HUTCHINSON QC —- This man was the judge who simply waived away with a, “Very well”, the indisputable fact that Bottomley had lied, – committed perjury – in the giving of his evidence, and then in a contrived and perverse outcome driven judgement, went on to cover up the wrongdoings of Paul S Withey by rejecting his evidence with “regret and embarrassment”, and then sought to excuse him by stating that he felt that he had been trying to give the Bottomleys “Value for Money”!!!
He sought to exonerate the barrister John Walford by praising his performance in the court, but the truth was that John Walfords prime duty to the court was to not allow the court to be misled. It was his duty to stand himself down rather than support a fraudster who was giving evidence which he knew to be different to, and conflicting with, the ‘pleaded case’ which he himself had authored almost five years earlier.
I had approached the court ready and able to defeat the documented ‘pleaded case’ only to meet a verbal case that had been virtually concocted on the steps to the court and this was within the knowledge of the barrister, John Walford. Little wonder that he excused himself on the last day of the hearing!!!
I could not allow this injustice which had caused me so much loss in every way, and not just material. I had to make application to judge Arthur Hutchinson for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in London. He refused me telling me, “You can’t have two bites of the cherry!!!
REGISTRAR JOHN ADAMS of the Royal Court of Appeal in London was the only honest lawyer I have met who was prepared to allow me a chance at justice by giving me leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The barrister, Andrew Thompson, was there to oppose my application and Registrar Adams was not impressed that solicitors had instructed a barrister to oppose the application of a Litigant in Person. Registrar Adams told me to be quiet and to listen whilst he spoke to the barrister. It was a sight to behold and one which I will never forget as he verbally tore into the barrister telling him that the contract which he was claiming was,”Madness. Madness.” It ended with Andrew Thompson opening and closing his mouth and nothing coming out. — Truly Speechless!!! Registrar Adams turned to me and told me that I was to go before the Court of Appeal but advised me to get legal representation. Even if I could have got legal aid, where would I find a lawyer who would truly represent my interests and not cover up for all of those who had gone before? I had no choice but to represent myself.
LORDS JUSTICE DILLON AND EVANS were the two appeal court judges who I appeared before and I did not have a chance against them! I spent one hour and twenty minutes before them proving through the documentation the conflicts of evidence between Bottomleys pleaded case and his case to the court. There were two conflicting stories of contract and inducements to contract, 5 years apart, from one and the same person!!!
There was also the fact that Bottomley had perjured himself in the giving of his evidence. What quality of evidence was this???
After I had ended my presentation the judges asked the barrister, John Walford, who was present, if he had anything to say and he declined. Lord Justice Dillon then dismissed my case by reading from a 12 paged judgement that was obviously pre-written for them since it could not have been written simultaneous to my presentation of my case, and, it contained two false embellishments which had been invented by its author and which are not to be found in any of the available documentation presented to the court!
My next step would have been to appeal to the House of Lords but I had now realised that the higher one progresses in this evil satanic ‘system’ the greater the resistance to justice becomes. There’s no point in appealing to Satan from Satan.
I did try to have the judgement set aside in the Bradford courts on the grounds that it had been obtained by fraud but a lot of people who had come from all over the country to support me walked out of the court in disgust as judge JOHN COCKCROFT gave his judgement dismissing my case.
Our only man made lawful hope of Justice in this country is through the restoration of Magna Carta where we are judged by our own peers because, for whatever reason, when the interests of justice conflict with the interests of lawyers, then, injustice is inevitable.
I do not believe that Jehovah God Almighty allowed me to experience and learn all that I have done about this evil satanic ‘system’ just for me keep quiet about it.
In Jesus’s name, Please Jehovah God Almighty, Let Thy Kingdom Come. Let Thy Will Be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Amen.
Any comments or observations please e-mail me at email@example.com
Additional to the above 15 May 2017
As an instance of how contrived and perverse the judgement of Arthur Hutchinson was, please consider the following :- At the hearing, a ‘Surprise Witness,’ a chap called Wilfred Lee, a man who I had never met in my life, gave evidence that he had been present in a pub 5 years earlier when he had overheard me tell Bottomley that I would do the work at no cost to him.
I had not received a statement of what his evidence was to be, and when I challenged him, in cross examination, he blustered, “Look, I don’t want involving in all of this. I’ve only come along to be a character witness.”
At this, I released him from cross examination, satisfied that I had proven all that I needed to prove.
It was quite sometime later, when I was in possession of the judges ‘Notes of Evidence’ that I found that this cross examination revelation was not recorded, and the judge had written, NOTE FOR JUDGEMENT – This witness not lying.
Of course he was!!!! The judges Notes of Evidence also show that he could remember his brief and the name of the pub, which was The Travellers Rest, of which there were two in Bradford, miles apart from each other, at that time, but he could not remember which one he was supposed to have been in!!!!
It was some time later that a judge JOHN BULLIMORE informed that this type of surprise witness were no longer allowed in the courts.
Too late for me though.
Any comments or observations, I can be contacted by typing my email address which is, firstname.lastname@example.org