EMAIL
TO PINSENT MASONS POINTING OUT
BREACHES
OF PROTOCOL
Thursday
24 January 2013
1.
I
believe that on Thursday 24 January 2013, Brian Pead sent an email to James
McBurney of Pinsent Masons and approximately 300 fee earners at Pinsent Masons.
He also sent the email to the Prime Minister and also to Tom Watson, MP, who
claimed to be conducting an investigation into child abuse.
2.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that the contents of that email was as
follows: Alerted the principals of the company that basic errors had taken
place in Pre-Action Protocols; Alerting Pinsent Masons to the fact that they
had not produced Letters of Authority from Twist and Dunipace; Alerting them to
their harassment of Brian Pead; Pinsent Masons had interfered with the Book
Launch at Foyles; the email sought Disclosure – this was not provided; Brian Pead
had made a considerable effort to keep this matter away from the Courts which
is part of the overriding principles of the CPR; Alerted them to the fact that
a Publisher is the first entity to contact; They failed to respond to Brian
Pead’s reasonable email sent in good faith; Pinsent Masons added themselves as
a Party and they added Lambeth Council as a party to these proceedings.
UNLAWFULLY
OBTAINED GAGGING ORDERS
30 January 2013
3.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that James McBurney of lawyers Pinsent
Masons failed to inform Brian Pead or Michael Bird that a Hearing was to take
place before Judge Michael Tugendhat at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
4.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that Caroline Addy of One Brick Court lied
to the Judge that Mr Pead and Mr Bird had been informed about the Hearing in
sufficient time for them to attend.
5.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that neither Mr Pead nor Mr Bird was
informed about the alleged Hearing in accordance with the Civil Procedure
Rules.
6.
In
any event, I believe that Mr Pead was, by happenstance, present at the Royal
Courts of Justice on that day, and CCTV will prove it.
7.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that Justice Tugendhat neglected to
establish the provenance of the information he had been given by Caroline Addy
and James McBurney with regard to the whereabouts of Brian Pead and Michael
Bird.
8.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that the two “Gagging Orders” issued that
day were gained fraudulently and are therefore void ab initio.
9.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that Lord Denning – a former High Court
judge – said: “...It is beyond doubt that, if a tribunal fails to observe the
rules of natural justice, or is biased – its decision is a nullity and void;
and it can be quashed on certiorari; or declared void by a declaration to that
effect...”
10.
I
believe that it is self-evident that, once an order of the Court has been issued
unlawfully, not only is its decision a nullity as stated by Lord Denning, but
that it is void and any actions based upon that decision are also automatically
void.
11.
I
believe that the following events – based entirely on the void orders of the
Court – are also void and are thus a significant breach of Brian Pead’s human
rights.
UNLAWFUL COURT
ORDERS SENT TO BRIAN PEAD
Saturday 2 February 2013
12.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that Brian Pead received an email from
Pinsent Masons which included alleged Notes of the Hearing of 30 January 2013
and two alleged Judgment Orders from Mr Justice Tugendhat.
13.
From
evidence that I have seen, I believe that the email said, “By way of service I send
the orders of the Judge.” However, the Court had a responsibility and a Duty of
Care to Mr Pead to make him aware of the Orders, not Pinsent Masons.
14.
In
any event, Pinsent Masons does not effect service by way of email.
15.
In
the words of Lord Denning, I believe that the Orders were void ab initio and they are therefore
unlawful documents. Any actions taken thereafter in relation to the Orders are
also Void.
No comments:
Post a Comment