Sunday, 17 March 2013
Brian Pead in Contempt of Court Hearing
Thursday 14 March 2013
The Royal Courts of Justice, Court 14 before Mr Justice Tugendhat
Brian Pead v Lambeth Council, Pinsent Masons, Cathy Twist, Phyllis Dunipace
Brian Pead v Lambeth Council, Pinsent Masons, Cathy Twist, Phyllis Dunipace
In the matter of Contempt of Court by Brian Pead. This is the man who is single-handedly harassing all of Lambeth Council’s employees and the entire workforce of Pinsent Masons, the international law firm “with a global reach”. And Cathy Twist. And Phyllis Dunipace. So, this individual is apparently causing alarm and distress to thousands of people simultaneously.
Brian had received no notification of this impending court action. He certainly never heard a thing from the Court, although the Court has details of his address and telephone number.
On the afternoon of 13th March 2013, he happened to come across a letter with his name on it in the lobby belonging to his elderly neighbour. For the record, Brian has no front door on to the street. His own front door into the lobby owned exclusively by his neighbour has no letterbox. Perhaps this is the reason why letters addressed to him often do not reach him. Many people had suggested that his mail was being intercepted, but surely this can’t be so. It must be because he has no letterbox that letters fail to arrive, or those that do arrive are often torn open or not even sealed! We have photographic evidence to support this claim.
Upon seeing this one-page letter from Pinsent Masons, Brian was caused significant alarm and distress and went to see another neighbour. Brian had no intention to commit the act of Contempt of Court, which he believes to be a Common Law misdemeanour in any event.
From his neighbour’s house, Brian called Pinsent Masons and asked to speak with James McBurney, the lawyer apparently handling the case. Brian was told that McBurney was out, then at his desk on another call … the familiar pattern.
Brian asked the female to get Mr McBurney to call him back as it was an urgent.
He then told the female that he was recording the call, at which point she slammed the telephone down. The international law firm with a global reach appears not to set aside much funding towards staff training.
Throughout that entire afternoon, Brian received no call from Pinsent Masons or the court.
On his way to the Court, Brian received an urgent telephone call from his distressed 75-year-old female neighbour whose private life had been violated by two “burly officers” from Southend Police station. (This is an assumption because they did not show ID and they did not tell her where they were from.) They were in full uniform and arrived in a marked police car. (This display is done to alert all the neighbours in the vicinity and to provide a show of force and reassurance that our tax pounds are being well spent.) Her Article 8 Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 – the Right to Privacy and Family life were violated by Southend Police, who have caused her similar alarm and distress on two previous occasions. This constitutes a “course of conduct” under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Upon arrival at Court, Brian made his way to the Listings Office and was told that a Contempt of Court Order would have to be made and issued by the Court and not Pinsent Masons. Brian asked why he had not been informed by the High Court and was told that he had been informed on 25 February 2013. But he didn’t receive such a letter. (This is part of the game they play. Don’t send him the documents or letters and claim that HE is being obdurate or even that he is lying by claiming that he has not received the paperwork they HAVEN’T sent. Jolly japes.)
He then made his way to Court 14. Mr Tugendhat was hearing another case, so Brian made his way to the Public Gallery to complete his notes for his own Hearing (not having been granted sufficient time in which to prepare).
Mr Tugendhat did not look very pleased to see Brian.
The first hearing (WXY v Gewanter and Others) ended at 10:45.
Caroline Addy represented the four parties. Pinsent Masons had instructed her.
At 10:50, Ms Addy attempted to serve 3 lever-arch files on Brian Pead. He did not touch them or accept them as being served.
At 10:55, Ms Addy said, “Mr Pead, may I ask you a question?” (She just had.)
Brian Pead: “No, sorry.”
10:58 and absolute silence in Court, so much so that Brian heard the clock ticking.
The Court Usher asked Caroline Addy and Pinsent Masons and Lambeth Council if they were ready – she didn’t look at Brian Pead or ask him if he was ready.
At 11:00 Judge Tugendhat appeared in full robes.
Addy: I appeared before you on 30 January 2013 to seek Orders against Mr Pead on the grounds of privacy and harassment.
Judge:I am considering whether I can proceed today or not. Mr Pead doesn’t have legal representation.
Addy: Can I tell you about informing Mr Pead?
Judge: Yes.
Addy: We have included in the bundle a Certificate of Service. We have emails. Logs of phonecalls. He is uncontactable! We say that Mr Pead has been properly served.
What he has not been given is the hearing Bundle because we cannot get it through his letterbox.
We asked a courier to deliver the Bundle. Mr Pead has refused to co-operate.
You will have seen from my skeleton argument that there was a defect because it omitted the penal notice to attend.
We understand that Mr Pead is entitled to Legal Aid.
Judge: Where is the letter claiming service?
Addy: We know he received it because he went to his website and ran a story entitled ‘Harassment’.
Judge: Where is his response?
Addy: Not in the bundle. My bundle is not up to date.
Judge: I have a letter at 9A in the Bundle. It’s from Ms Mills at Pinsent Masons who works with Mr McBurney.
Addy: The position is that Mr Pead declines to answer emails/ letters or even answer the telephone. (She forgot to add that he refuses to answer Unknown numbers and they always call using Unknown numbers. Evidence? The log of phonecalls on his mobile phone.)
Judge: I am still considering the issue of representation…
Addy: He is entitled to …
Judge: I will ask him.
Judge: This is an Application to commit you to prison for Contempt of Court. The Court has the power to commit you to prison for Contempt.
Pead: I wonder why you are referring to only one of THREE possible options for Contempt not that I believe I am guilty of contempt in any event.
Other options, as you will know, include a fine or one’s assets being seized. I have no assets.
Judge: I am referring to the prison option because, since custody is available to me, I am duty bound to ensure that you have legal representation.
Pead:Well, I have with me a copy of my Notes regarding Void Orders…
Judge:Did you prepare a copy for the Court and Miss Addy?
Pead: No, I didn’t have sufficient time in which to prepare.
11:17 … copies being made of Brian Pead’s notes.
Judge:Miss Addy, how long is this Hearing listed for?
Addy:It is listed for 3 hours. We have to accede to Mr Pead’s right to obtain legal representation.
Judge:Yes.
Addy:Mr Pead needs to have a fair process.
Judge:I am not asking you to comment on Mr Pead’s rights.
I am going to rise for a few moments because of the photocopying.
11:20 Brian Pead asked a female sitting to his left the front of the Court who she was. She replied that she was a court reporter from Sweet and Maxwell.
11:25 The photocopying of Brian Pead’s notes is completed.
Pead:In my notes, it says: “A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning), then there is no real Order of the Court”.
And since they have failed to serve me properly and committed other breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules, I am declaring the Order is Void and I do not have to comply with it.
Furthermore, Lord Denning stated: “…A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing…” MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961]
Addy:We move to hear again in 14 days.The last day of the Michaelmas Term is 27 March 2013. We say that Mr Pead should serve his evidence by 21 March 2013. Practice Direction 81, 15(4) states…
Judge:I haven’t got that. (Yes, he truly said that! A High Court Judge did not have on his bench the latest copy of the White Book and appendices.)
Addy: It’s in the 2nd supplement 2012.
Pead:When does the new term start please?
Clerk:9 April 2013.
Judge:Mr Pead, this is a court of unlimited jurisdiction. The Orders you claim are Void are not Void until an application is made for them to be declared by the Court as Void. Until then, you must obey them. They have to be obeyed by everybody, even you.
Pead:I request that this Hearing commences in the new term, after 9 April 2013 in order to give me more time to locate a trustworthy lawyer and for me to prepare my defence with that lawyer.
Judge:I’m against you on this.
Pead:I thought you might be.
Judge:The hearing is on 27 March 2013.
Alternatively, please click here .
And here .
Copyright. All Rights Reserved 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment