HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT) PANNONE LLP. and

Transcription

1 A IN T I OURT O JUSTI QUN S N IVISION (Manchester istrict Registry) Ref: 2MA90015 Manchester ivil Justice entre 1 ridge Street West Manchester efore: 14 th January 2013 IS ONOUR JU PLLIN Q (SITTIN AS A JU O T I OURT) etween: PANNON LLP and laimants MIAL LARK efendant (Transcribed from the Official Recording by, 1 st loor, Paddington ouse, New Road, Kidderminster, Y10 1AL Tel: ax: Official ourt Reporters and Tape Transcribers) MR TRRY appeared on behalf of the claimants PROINS OR AN ATR JUMNT 1

2 A MR JUSTI PLLIN: an I start by pointing out that I m accompanied by a marshall who is on an officially approved training course by sitting with me and shadowing the court MR TRRY: Thank you My lord, I appear for the claimants in this matter To my right are two gentlemen who have introduced themselves to me as respectively, to the far right, Roger and to my immediate right uy They don t disclose their surnames as such but they tell me they appear as common law advocates for, if I understand it correctly, the fiction Michael larke, Mr larke MR JUSTI PLLIN: Is Mr larke present? ROR: Yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: You sir are Mr larke are you? ROR: I m Roger We are claiming that the court order is that Mr larke be brought before the court, that s complied with Mr larke is a legal fiction ave you received the document sir, the notice to the court the igh ourt? MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sir, is it the answer to my question ROR: I ve answered your MR JUSTI PLLIN: Mr larke ROR: question sir MR JUSTI PLLIN: is not physically present in court? ROR: Mr larke is physically present in the court MR JUSTI PLLIN: What right - pause, pause You have no rights of audience here ROR: Yes I do MR JUSTI PLLIN: So ROR: We re claiming common law jurisdiction, we do have right of audience enial of right of audience is bias, the court understands that bias is against the law, if you want to exclude us from this court then you are showing bias and that s immediately denial of due process MR JUSTI PLLIN: You have no rights of audience here ROR: Sir we do MR JUSTI PLLIN: if Mr larke was present ROR: Mr larke 2

3 MR JUSTI PLLIN: he A ROR: is present MR JUSTI PLLIN: he would be entitled to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend ROR: Sir have you read the document MR JUSTI PLLIN: to present his case ROR: ave you read the document? ROR: Okay, so you will know that Mr larke is a legal fiction, this is a legal fiction, you know what a legal fiction is, we know what a legal fiction is, let s move on please MR JUSTI PLLIN: I direct that you please sit down ROR: Sir, you don t have authority yet, we need to establish your authority MR JUSTI PLLIN: Please sit down sir ROR: You are an administrator in this hearing MR JUSTI PLLIN: I will ask you one more time to sit down sir ROR: Is it a request or an order? MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right I rise (Short adjournment) MR JUSTI PLLIN: Yes Mr Terry (ourt was resumed) MR TRRY: My lord, this is the return date of the application to commit Mr larke MR TRRY: following his arrest and appearance before is onour Judge Stewart Q on 28 th ecember Your lordship will no doubt recall making an order for his arrest on 17 th ecember when you found on the basis of the material before you that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he had breached the order of oskett J made on 2 nd May this year in this case Since you made that order the arrest took place as I say and Mr larke was brought before Judge Stewart on 28 th ecember when the matter was adjourned over to today and Mr larke was released on the footing that he could and would appear today As your lordship has no doubt gleaned that is not the fact I understand that he has taken two steps since 28 th ecember, he lodged one document at 3

4 A court, which I ll take you to in a moment, a few days ago and a further document, described as a notice to the igh ourt, was I understand handed in by him this morning which I take it your lordship has also seen Then as you are aware a few moments ago there appeared two gentlemen who have since departed the court having discussed matters with the police There are two perhaps courses open to your lordship today, the one I invite is for your lordship now to proceed with the committal application in Mr larke s absence learly MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well that will require first of all proof of service, strict proof of service of the relevant documentation and of notice of hearing today MR TRRY: Yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: because he doesn t appear and he s not represented, then it will be necessary for you to demonstrate to the criminal standard, that is prove beyond reasonable doubt, the breaches which are relied on in support of the contempt application MR TRRY: Yes My lord, so far as service is concerned my understanding is that Mr larke was served with the documents which you required to be served with when you made the order of 17 th ecember whilst he was in court on the 28 th and you should have an application bundle for MR TRRY: today s purposes and if I could invite you, if you have that bundle, to turn to tab 20, tabs 22 through to 24, those are affidavits from Alan urtis of the 18 th and 20 th ecember and 3 rd January and they deal with the service of the proceedings on Mr larke, and perhaps tab 23 first of all MR TRRY: Your lordship will recall requiring that the documents were put into the custody of the police so they could be served as soon as possible following the arrest of Mr larke, page 239 behind tab 23 deals with that process being completed, and then behind tab 24 Mr urtis states that, and I ll perhaps read paragraph 1 MR TRRY: That I did on riday 28 th ecember 2012 at 1453 hours attend at Manchester istrict Registry of the igh ourt of Justice, Manchester ivil Justice entre, 1 ridge Street West, Manchester M60 9J and personally serve the defendant Michael larke with a letter from Pannone LLP dated 19 th ecember 2012 together with a warrant of arrest dated 17 th ecember 2012, order for arrest of Mr Michael larke before is onour Judge Pelling dated 17 th ecember 2012, application notice dated 14 th ecember 2012, draft order, table of breaches of the final injunction order granted on 2 nd May 2012 as amended further to the order of is onour Judge Pelling dated 17 th ecember 2012, affidavit of Paul aniel Johnson dated 14 th ecember 2012, affidavit of harles Soren(?) Tatton dated 14 th ecember 2012 and affidavit of Alan urtis dated 2 nd July 2012 and solicitor s note of hearing dated 17 th ecember 2012 and the letter to the defendant, Mr Michael larke, dated 19 th ecember 2012 together with the claim form dated 18 th ecember 2012 M208, note for the efendant and an order for an interim 4

5 injunction before is onour Judge Pelling Q dated 17 th ecember 2012, and then he produces a bundle of the relevant documents marked A1 A MR JUSTI PLLIN: Yes, and what about the hearing, notice of the hearing today? MR TRRY: That was given to him personally in court on 28 th ecember and it ll take me a moment perhaps just to locate this but we have a transcript of that hearing - if I could just pass you this bundle, little bundle of transcripts MR JUSTI PLLIN: Thank you MR TRRY: ehind tab 4 is the transcript of the hearing before Judge Stewart MR TRRY: and Mr errigan appeared on behalf of the claimants on that occasion I don t know if your lordship will give me a moment just to flick through this There was some discussion first of all about whether there was power to remand in custody and then the period of an adjournment which was to be between fourteen and twenty-eight days - I m in the middle of page 4 of the transcript MR TRRY: Judge Stewart: oes fourteen days include a fortnight today or not, probably a fortnight on Monday would be best wouldn t it? Mr errigan: Yes Judge Stewart: I m proposing putting this case back to Monday 14 th January, is there any reason why you can t attend on that date, that was addressed to Mr larke MR TRRY: no audible reply Judge Stewart: No, all right I ll put it in on 14 th January [Short pause] What I m therefore going to do is I m going to adjourn this case for a fortnight on Monday, so that will be Monday 14 th January I m going to release you today, if you don t turn up on Monday 14 th January you will almost certainly be rearrested and brought back and that will be an aggravation of any breaches that are found, do you understand, it ll make matters worse, and then he deals with service of the documents and suggests legal advice MR TRRY: So I think there s a little more about it If we go to the bottom of page 6 Judge Stewart repeats: What I m proposing to order today is this, and then he recites the order he s proposing which includes adjourning to 14 th January at 1030 at the ivil Justice entre in Manchester before Judge Pelling if possible e asks Mr errigan if there s anything he wants to say, he doesn t, and then addressing himself to Mr larke: Sir I won t go through what I said before but you would be well advised to take steps to comply whatever you may think of the court and the court order etc, because it can only get worse if you don t ertainly if you don t turn up you ll be arrested almost certainly and brought back and that will make things worse too, do you understand? Yes Judge Stewart: You ll be free to go in a few minutes before, because this short order, I m going to ask the clerk to type it up and seal it so that you have a copy and they have got a copy so there s no mistake You ll be able to go, I hope that within ten minutes you ll be 5

6 A free to go until 1030 a fortnight on Monday 14 th January I ll keep all the papers together so once you get a copy of this order you are free to go until 14 th January So he was given a copy of the order made on that date before he was released from custody and that order you have in the main bundle behind tab 14, page 194, which contains at paragraph 1 clear notice of the hearing before, listed before you today MR JUSTI PLLIN: There is evidence he was actually given that is there? MR TRRY: Sorry? MR JUSTI PLLIN: There s evidence he was actually given that before he left court? I know Judge Stewart said he was to be given it, is there evidence that he actually was given it? MR TRRY: I don t believe we have that in - may I just take two seconds? MR TRRY: What we do have my lord behind tab 16 is the note that was made by the solicitor, Mr avid ook MR TRRY: who was in attendance on that date If you look at page 202 MR TRRY: it concludes: The judge left the court at 1505 The court order was then given to the defendant in the dock by the court clerk witnessed by the police officers as well as all of us present MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right Now what are you asking me to do today, are you asking me to issue a warrant for Mr larke s arrest or ask, or are you asking me to proceed with the contempt application? MR TRRY: I invite you to proceed with the contempt application MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right MR TRRY: Those are the two alternatives that are open to you MR TRRY: and clearly it must be one or the other in my submission MR TRRY: Were there any valid reason for Mr larke not being here then it may be more appropriate to simply issue a warrant for his arrest and bring him back again, but the difficulty with that process of course is that it makes it difficult for the court to be in a position necessarily to proceed immediately upon him being brought up or we may simply 6

7 go around the same circle again if he s simply brought before the court and then released and told to come back on a specific day A MR JUSTI PLLIN: All right Well if you re going to proceed with the application that s fine, but you d better make sure that all the procedural requirements for contempt application are satisfied insofar as they re required to be satisfied by the Act So that involves proving that the relevant originating process has been served, so we need to go to that, we need to demonstrate that the originating process satisfies the requirements for contempt, which means that they particularise the allegations which are being made, and then you ll have to take me to the evidence to demonstrate to the criminal standard the breaches that you allege MR TRRY: The originating process - has your lordship seen a skeleton argument from me? MR JUSTI PLLIN: I have yes Normally you see you d have to issue an application notice with the allegations particularised and MR TRRY: Yes, that s the point I make in the skeleton, that because of the way this was brought before the court on the application for the power of, for the arrest, there isn t actually an application notice as such seeking committal MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well doesn t there have to be? MR TRRY: Normally there does over at 81 MR TRRY: but as I say in the skeleton there are two reasons why I said that is not, does not need to be complied with here The first is that there is some authority, Manchester ity ouncil v Worthington [2000] 1 LR 411, it s paragraph 39 of my skeleton argument, and can I perhaps pass you a small bundle that s got the authorities in it MR TRRY: Paragraph 39 of my skeleton, which is at the beginning of that bundle, I say: It might be said there s been technical non-compliance with PR 81(10) given that there s no actual application notice seeking committal as such, but it s submitted the procedure is similar to that under what was section 152 of the ousing Act which have provided for anti-social injunctions and which was considered in Manchester ity ouncil v Worthington, and in that case it was held that where a defendant is brought to court following an arrest no notice to show cause is actually required although the court must obviously take care to establish the relevant facts and it is desirable, is the way it was put, for there to be written allegations of the breaches available for the judge and the contemnor You have that case I think in the penultimate tab of the bundle - the last tab you see is actually empty 7

8 MR TRRY: And you ll see it was a different type of case in the sense it was a ousing Act case but the same point was, arose in that the, that also provided for a power of arrest to be made and A MR JUSTI PLLIN: At, against the background of an injunction having previously been granted MR TRRY: Yes MR TRRY: The contemnor was then arrested and brought before the court and there was no application notice to show cause and he was dealt with, in fact somewhat curiously he came before the ourt of Appeal on the ouncil s application because they thought the judge had dealt with it too summarily and not given sufficient weight to the gravity or listened to their case in sufficient detail, but you ll see if you look at the head note at the bottom of page 411 of the report per Lady Justice utler-sloss: Although notice to show cause was not required where a power of arrest had resulted in the arrest for breach of injunctions, it would have been highly desirable to have written allegations of the breaches alleged placed before the judge and available for the contemnor, and that emerges from her judgment which is on page 416 The relevant passage begins between and where she says: There is one other point I would like to make, although apparently a notice to show to cause is not required in a case where a power of arrest has resulted in the arrest for breach of injunctions and therefore the contemnor is in custody, it would be highly desirable to have the allegations of the breaches alleged even in manuscript form placed before the judge and available for the contemnor It has also crossed my mind whether there would be a possible - I needn t go on with the rest of that - that s the short point and I say by analogy it would apply here as well, it s the same principle ut in any event under - if I can just find the relevant part of my skeleton argument - there is power to waive the technical irregularity, if that s what it is, under the practice direction to PR 81 You ve got that behind the third tab I think, and it s paragraph 162 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Paragraph? MR TRRY: 162 of the practice direction not the actual MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right MR TRRY: order It reads simply: The court may waive any procedural defect in the commencement or conduct of a committal application if satisfied that no injustice has been caused to the respondent by the defect, and I say if necessary that should be applied here for these reasons, the notice of application for the warrant of arrest itself you will recall contained a detailed table of the allegations of breach, and you looked at that with some care on 17 th ecember when you excluded a number of the allegations as being outside the scope of the original injunction MR TRRY: but found that others were, there was reasonable ground to believe that others had, were correct and that there had been breaches in those regards and so that has been served Your order of 17 th ecember has been served which in fact whittles down 8

9 A and identifies the live issues arising from that table, and of course your order of 17 th ecember it says in terms that following the arrest Mr larke is to be brought before the court for consideration to be given to the question of whether he is in contempt in one or more of the respective breaches and if so whether he is to be committed to prison or some other sanction taken if any MR JUSTI PLLIN: Yes, and that order is where within the bundle? MR TRRY: That order is tab 11, page 177, and the material parts are on page 178: Upon the claimants amending paragraph 3(11) of the table to delete the words: Mr Tatton and upon the court being satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing the defendant has breached the terms of the May order, that s oskett J s order: as alleged in the table excluding - and then there s a list of the paragraphs that you deleted in effect from the table MR TRRY: it is ordered: 1) a warrant be issued for the arrest of the defendant, and 2) - this is the material part: that Michael larke be brought before a judge of the igh ourt as soon as is practically possible following his arrest for further consideration to be given to: (a) the question of whether the defendant is in contempt of court by breaching the May order in one or more of the respects set out in the table, and (b) if so whether the defendant shall be committed to prison for that contempt or such other sanctions be imposed upon him as shall seem appropriate to the court, and then you went on to make provision for him to be served with all the relevant documents which we have dealt with So any failure to issue an application notice actually setting out the same breaches and what is actually said in your order of 17 th ecember would be merely repetitious and so there can be no injustice in procedure MR JUSTI PLLIN: And Lady Justice utler-sloss requirement for there to be a table is, you say, satisfied by virtue of the table as amended by my order MR TRRY: Yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: Very good MR TRRY: My lord, then if I can proceed to deal with the substantive merits MR TRRY: The, I should start perhaps with the order of oskett J MR TRRY: just to remind you of that, you have that behind tab 9 It contains on page 140 a specific warning that if you disobey this order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and maybe sent to prison or fined or your assets maybe seized It then contains, after formal recitations, a declaration concerning the so-called commercial deal which is actually appended to the order, that it is of no legal validity or effect and is incapable of creating a debt due from the claimants or any of them, similarly that there is no debt in paragraph 2) whether in the sums alleged in the commercial lien or at all, and then most materially for present purposes at 3) and its various subparagraphs is an 9

10 A injunction restraining Mr larke from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment of the claimants and in particular from - and then there are a list of subparagraphs, I don t know if your lordship needs me to read them all out, you have seen them before It may suffice for present purposes for me to say that the allegations of breach effectively fall under four heads, if I may paraphrase them in this way, firstly in breach of the injunctions at (a) and (b) of 3) of the order, that s to say maintaining existing text or postings on his website which refer to the commercial lien or in any way suggesting that the lien is effective to create a debt, and (b) making any further similar claims otherwise than by way of formal complaint through the proper channels The first breach is of maintaining the website - and I ll take you to it in a moment to demonstrate this - in precisely the same form as it appeared at the time when oskett J s order was made and indeed by continuing to add offending paragraphs and sections to it The second of my four heads relates to the advertisement which is attached to the order and forms the subject of (c) of paragraph 3) of the order and the injunction prohibited Mr larke from continuing to publish that whether on the internet or otherwise - and I ll take you in a moment to that also - but that continues to be prominently displayed on the website Thirdly, there was an injunction prohibiting - and this is (f) - from prohibiting Mr larke from communicating with the members of Pannone LLP other than the three specified individuals in that paragraph because of his practice of sending circular s to all - it was then fifty odd, I think it s now sixty odd or more - members most of whom of course have no knowledge of what s going on and are simply pestered by these circular s, he has continued to do that - and I ll take you to those offending s also in a moment ourthly, he was prohibited from continuing to maintain the validity of his lien despite the declaration of its invalidity and that he has continued to do by the same methods that I ve just described MR JUSTI PLLIN: I m sorry, that s breach of which of these sub clauses? MR TRRY: That really is (b), 3)(b) MR TRRY: because (a) prevents him from any postings which refer to the so-called commercial lien MR TRRY: and (b) prevents him from making any further or other claims of a similar kind MR JUSTI PLLIN: Now normally MR TRRY: And (d) MR JUSTI PLLIN: you are required to demonstrate personal service of this order aren t you? MR TRRY: Of this order? MR TRRY: Yes 10

11 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Are you able to do that? MR TRRY: Yes, I think that was done to your satisfaction on the last A MR JUSTI PLLIN: I m sure but I m just trying to MR TRRY: Yes I MR JUSTI PLLIN: make sure that all the MR TRRY: I understand MR JUSTI PLLIN: issues are covered MR TRRY: That will be at tab 5 Another affidavit from the same Mr urtis, the process server, paragraph 1): That I did on Sunday 1 st July 2012 at 2312 hours at the exit/entrance door to Terminal 3, Manchester Airport, personally served Michael larke with an order made by The onourable Mr Justice oskett on 2 nd May and bearing a penal notice with attached annexe A and annexe, together with a letter from Pannone Solicitors addressed to Mr larke and dated 2 nd May pointing out to him the penal notice e describes that the defendant refused to physically accept the documents claiming they were not addressed to the correct person and I therefore had cause to drop the documents on the floor at his feet; and thirdly that I was able to identify the defendant having served process upon him on a number of previous occasions, and indeed when we look at the website in a moment that account is actually borne out almost word for word by Mr larke himself as to what happened on the occasion at the airport, so he was personally served with the order oes your lordship then have in a separate bundle the affidavit of Mr Johnson which was before you on 17 th ecember, if not MR JUSTI PLLIN: No MR TRRY: because the exhibit is so large, mainly consisting of the website MR TRRY: in its full glory, it s in a separate bundle MR JUSTI PLLIN: Now this, you re turning now to the alleged breaches are you? MR TRRY: Yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well it would be helpful I think to have the revised schedule or list available and open in front of us so that we can cross-reference the evidence to the allegations made so as to demonstrate the allegations that are viable MR TRRY: Well what MR JUSTI PLLIN: have been proved MR TRRY: The best thing to have open then is the amended table that was 11

12 MR TRRY: amended pursuant to your order A MR TRRY: and you have that behind tab 11 at page 179, and can I help to this extent before we leave it, the amendment that you required is on the second page of that, 180, and it s in red MR TRRY: ut then if we also just run through it quickly deleting those which you require to be deleted MR TRRY: by the order On page 179 if you delete numbers 2 and 4 On page 180 delete number 9 On page 181 delete number 2 under 3(b) On page 182 delete numbers 2 and 3 at the top of that page, and the rest stand MR TRRY: Subject to this I don t propose to proceed, on page 179 the first complaint relates to an and a letter dated 19 th May 2012, and that s repeated in other places, since personal service was not effected until 1 st July I don t propose to rely upon MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right so we can take that out MR TRRY: the references to 19 th May MR JUSTI PLLIN: So that comes out as well Which other ones associated with that come out? MR TRRY: Then it also appears at the top of page 181, number 1 It appears at the bottom of page 181 under 3(d)(1) It appears on page 182 at 3(e)(1) and on page 183 at 3(f)(1) MR JUSTI PLLIN: Yes, and we keep that open and then you re going to take me to the evidence MR TRRY: I ll take you to the evidence and then perhaps come back and canter through them in the light of doing that If then we could go to the affidavit of Mr Johnson, and can I take you first of all to the website which is part of exhibit PJ1 and it starts - working as it were back to front because the most recent entries are pasted first - on page 19, and what you have is a full printout of the website as it stood on 13 th ecember 2012, which you see from the bottom right-hand corner of that page You ll see it s divided into three columns and if I could draw your attention first of all to the righthand column just beneath the photograph of MR JUSTI PLLIN: Just give me a moment Sorry yes 12

13 A MR TRRY: Just beneath the photograph of Mr Jones it is in the right-hand column you will see in red: Pannone and the 9 million bone of contention, commercial lien/claim to read, and I don t propose, unless you wish me to, to read out the whole of that column but under that heading there is text that refers several times to our commercial lien and the effect which Mr larke maintains that it has, and that is what one sees on opening up this website, that s the sort of first page of it which hits you immediately in the face as it were If I could then go back in time to, and picking it up perhaps first of all at page 95 You will see that still being displayed, if you scroll all the way through to get here, towards the top of that page underneath the photographs there are entries for Saturday 24 th ecember, Thursday the 22 nd, Tuesday the 20 th, and below that Monday 19 th ecember so this is even before Mrs Justice Sharp granted interlocutory orders - reference to the commercial lien having been sworn in and served upon the defendants, Pannone s ugh Jones plus public guardian, so the order that required these entries to be removed are still being displayed That applies generally - I don t propose to go through them all, I ll just give your lordship a flavour - but if you turn back then to page 93 you will see for example in the middle of that page Wednesday 4 th January 2012, this again is slightly before the hearings before Mrs Justice Sharp, there are further references to the commercial lien being served upon the defendant s solicitor ugh Jones and forty-nine partners as well as Martin John hief Public uardian on 19 th ecember 2011 and fourteen days to respond having now expired therefore a notarised default notice having been sent to all fifty-one parties There s a, page 91 contains a photograph of Mrs Justice Sharp following the initial hearing before her and some entries relating to her Then if I move closer to the period in time between the interlocutory orders of Mrs Justice Sharp and the final order of oskett J you will see on page 73 below a photograph, a few lines below that underlined a reference to the commercial lien and the question being rhetorically I presume asked by Mr larke: Is another commercial lien needed to kick him up the jacksy and/or the enforcement of the outstanding one, this was in the period leading up to a final hearing on 2 nd May; and immediately before that hearing still being displayed on page 70, about halfway down that page, there s a photograph of oskett J and the line being taken, that was taken also today before this court: Sir avid oskett, it was said: is the so-called judge presiding over what would be an unconstitutional, unlawful, unconsented to (inaudible) chamber administrative hearing this Wednesday 2 nd May This is the judge that refused my request for a common law court with jury stating the law does not provide for a jury in this situation so the hearing would be dealt with by a judge alone, clearly indicating that Mr larke was at that time aware of the hearing that was to take place If you then bear in mind that the order was made on 2 nd May, and there is some reference in Mr Johnson s affidavit itself to Pannones having some communication with the internet provider following that order to try and get this website closed down - it appeared for a while as though it had been - and one can see if one picks up on page 66 that, from the entry there which is just about, just over halfway down, May 19 th 2012: ello Mike This is somebody who is, has corresponded presumably via the website with Mr larke: ello Mike, ood to see your site is back online, and so it does appear as though the website was taken down for a short period following the hearing on 2 nd May, but by 19 th May it was back up again and it appears to have remained there ever since I mentioned when I was looking at the affidavit of Mr urtis with regard to service of oskett J s order that there was an entry on the website concerning that service and you ll find that on page 52 About a third of the way down there s an entry, July 1 st 2012, 1130 pm Manchester Airport: Waiting for us at the airport tonight was Pannone LLP henchmen document servers, lobal Servers, whereupon we were harassed by them to accept documents to the legal fiction person/entity/corporation Mr Michael larke The server was told that is not me and he said it is, I said no its not it s the legal fiction person and that s not me e said I ll throw them onto the ground here in Manchester Airport if 13

14 A you do not take them from me I repeated that s not me so the rest is up to you e then threw the documents onto the floor whereupon they were left unserved! I needn t go further but that corroborates in effect the account of Mr urtis Then perhaps if I can move to more recent matters which led to the hearing before you on 17 th ecember At page 23 in the left-hand column towards the bottom you will see ecember 3 rd 2012 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well just give me a moment MR TRRY: Sorry MR JUSTI PLLIN: Page 23 yes? MR TRRY: Yes, left-hand column towards the bottom, ecember 3 rd 2012: eclaration filed, stat dec filed today by recorded delivery upon Manchester ivil Justice entre, hester ivil Justice entre, Pannone LLP, and then over the page is set out the text of it: Recorded delivery declaring the harassment order made and injunction of unlawful, illegal and therefore void MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sorry, where are you reading from now, page? MR TRRY: Top of the next page, 24 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sorry MR TRRY: It follows on eclaring the harassment order made of injunction unlawful, illegal and therefore void, top of the left-hand column on page 24, then he sets out his name and address and so on and makes the following declaration: It has recently come to my attention in the civil case - and it s the number of this case: of an injunction made against me on fraudulent harassment grounds was not only (a) unlawful as it was conducted in my absence without my consent and where a constitutionally formed common law court with a jury was requested and was refused, it also was illegal as it was in breach of my rights to protection against any civil liability whilst conducting my duties as a carer under the Mental apacity Act section 5 I hereby make oath and state as follows, the order made against me is VOI because: 1) the allegations contained in the counter defence are of a criminal nature contained within, and here again is the most recent reference following the hiatus after the order of 2 nd May to the commercial lien: criminal nature contained in a commercial lien claim of 9 million against Pannone LLP therefore not in a court of law that deals with such criminal nature in a fair and impartial manner; and 2) for the reasons listed above in (a) and (b) So it appears that at the beginning of ecember there was a renewed enthusiasm to promote this commercial lien and revise the activities that had led to the order in the first place If we go back then to page 22, towards the, just over halfway down, ecember 4 th again 2012, received at 802 pm today - and he sets out there a letter which was sent to him by Pannones having seen what was happening and containing a warning you will see: Unless you now take steps to withdraw the so-called commercial lien and cease ing our partners we will consider we have no alternative but to apply to court for a committal order, and his reply to that is above it where he says it s an illegal, unlawful void order and that the order you hold with the treasonous Judge oskett is illegal, unlawful and void Then if you turn back to page 21 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sorry, I m just finding it slightly difficult to follow this 14

15 MR TRRY: Yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: Where s that bit? A MR TRRY: That bit, it comes above the reference to the Pannones letter, in about the middle of page 22, left-hand column there was, there s a reference that starts MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well that s MR TRRY: ecember 4 th 2012 at 2130 reply MR TRRY: And that refers, that s his reply to the Pannone letter in effect referring to the order being MR JUSTI PLLIN: Right, I ve got it MR TRRY: illegal, unlawful MR TRRY: void and to treasonous Judge oskett Then if you turn back a page to 21 in the left-hand column about halfway down you have another photograph of oskett J and an entry of ecember 6 th for the attention of Pannones LLP, and here again we have a Ref: commercial lien, statutory declaration void ordered by Administrator oskett - he insists on calling judges of this court administrators: so-called Judge oskett should not be referred to as a judge, he s acting in the capacity of administrator, and he continues with an explanation of why he doesn t consider that he s bound, and you then have to go over the page to 22 for the end of this entry e begins at the top of that page, left-hand column, by saying: The Queen is no longer sovereign so in effect how can the judges have any power, he refers to Magna arta and then goes on: so I will be taking out a private criminal prosecution against him for perverting the course of justice, kidnap, unlawful imprisonment and seeking compensation of 1 million, and then further reference to the commercial debt: We intend to publish the debt in failing to negotiate by resolution Mike larke I think that s all I need to refer to in the website entries, but as your lordship will see there are several references recently made to the commercial lien which are, we say, breaches of the order together with the all encompassing failure to remove all the previous entries on the website which he continues to display The second of my four broad heads was the advertisement which is actually referred to in the order of oskett J and a copy of the advertisement is appended to the order, that continues to be displayed and you can see it on page 431, a further extract from the website, and of course in effect it s an advertisement seeking debt collectors to enforce this lien MR JUSTI PLLIN: ow does that demonstrate that it was, is there a date on it which enables me to say that it was after the final order? MR TRRY: I think I probably need to take you back to the affidavit Sorry yes you - I don t know if your lordship s eyesight is better than mine - but in fact you can see the date in the bottom right-hand corner, 13 th ecember, so it s the same date, and you can see in the enquiry section at the very top of the page that it s from opgme which is the website of the defendant Then the other matters that I would rely upon which deal with circular 15

16 s in breach of the order to others than the three nominated solicitors and further declarations concerning the commercial lien and attempts to A MR JUSTI PLLIN: Now this has to be MR TRRY: enforce it MR JUSTI PLLIN: to partners doesn t it in light of the way the MR TRRY: Members MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sorry members other than the three identified? MR TRRY: Yes So that involves establishing first of all who the s were sent to and secondly that they were members at the relevant time MR TRRY: Yes Well Mr Johnson will - if I can just find the relevant paragraphs of his affidavit an I pick it up at page 13, paragraph 69 - no now that deals with Mr Tatton Yes perhaps I can pick it up there Paragraph 69 deals with a letter that was sent to Mr Tatton Paragraph 72 refers to that enclosing a copy of Mr larke s commercial lien MR JUSTI PLLIN: This is all to Mr Tatton isn t it? MR TRRY: That s to Mr Tatton yes MR JUSTI PLLIN: That does, and he doesn t count because he wasn t a member MR TRRY: No After dealing with Mr Tatton, paragraph 77 - no I m sorry 76: In addition to sending the recorded delivery letter to Mr Tatton on 3 rd ecember Mr larke also sent an on that date from mike@ratenet to fifty-one members of the LLP, albeit that some of these individuals are no longer members given they have left the business A copy of this is at page 316 to 7 together with the statutory declaration that was attached to the being the same declaration that was sent to Mr Tatton on the same date ommunicating with all the members of the LLP in this way is another clear breach of the final order, and perhaps if we go to 316 you see there the sent at 1544 on 3 rd ecember to - and then there s the long list of the fifty-one members as described by Mr Johnson MR JUSTI PLLIN: So I am to infer am I that these addressees, or at least some of them, were members by virtue MR TRRY: Well you MR JUSTI PLLIN: of what was said at paragraph MR TRRY: 76 MR JUSTI PLLIN: 76? 16

17 MR TRRY: Well he says in terms that this was sent to fifty-one members of the LLP If you want to cross-reference I m reminded that at page 218 there s actually a schedule of the members as well, that ll be 218 of the bundle as opposed to this affidavit A MR JUSTI PLLIN: So if we go to 316 we ought to be able to tick off some of these names against that list ought we not? So Miss Wood is there, Miss Irwin s there, Alicia Rendell s there, Simon Pedley is there, Laura Jane Morgan is there - and perhaps I don t have to go further MR TRRY: I would have thought it s sufficient MR JUSTI PLLIN: along the list MR TRRY: so long as there is more than one of MR TRRY: If I can go back to the text of the affidavit perhaps picking it up then at paragraph 77 MR JUSTI PLLIN: Sorry 7 - we re now back to MR TRRY: Yes the affidavit, page 15 of the affidavit, paragraph 77 MR TRRY: ollowing the story through, Mr Johnson says that in response to this to the members on 4 th ecember: I ed Mr lark attaching a copy of the final injunction order pointing out the penal notice and setting out that the s sent to the members was a breach and inviting him to withdraw the commercial lien by, he said 7 th November At 78 larke ed back saying that didn t make sense being a reference to the date it should have been ecember rather than November and that was corrected at paragraph 79 Then at 80: On 5 th ecember Mr larke ed me at 121 am accusing me of being a co-conspirator in the continued action of fraud and giving MR JUSTI PLLIN: Was this gentlemen one of the listed people to whom communications could be sent? MR TRRY Yes MR TRRY: giving a statement to the court containing lies The timing of the picked up a pattern of harassment in Mr larke s previous course of conduct e stated: You don t frighten me with your threats of prison, your threats are not going to frighten me This is the material part perhaps: The commercial lien will stand for a further ninety-eight years, so even though it s sent to Mr Johnson that would be a breach, and he comments in paragraph 82 that apart from that reference the is clearly intended to intimidate and harass - that s probably a reference to: and od help you all, in the Then he refers to an sent to his MP which I needn t delay on Then at paragraph 84 on 6 th ecember at 1710 pm: In further breach of the prohibition on contacting members of the LLP save as specified individuals, Mr larke again ed 17

18 A members of the LLP - at pages 327 to 328 The covering states simply: Attached, and the letter attached to the sets out Mr larke s opinion as to oskett J being a court administrator and denial of due process of law So perhaps if we go to 327, in fact if you go first of all to 323 you ll see the, that there is the that, of 5 th ecember that contains the reference about three or four paragraphs up from the bottom of the page to the commercial lien standing for a further ninety-eight years, 324 is the response containing the final order, then you have the to the MP, and then 327 on 6 th ecember at 1710 and you ll see it looks like the same, the same list of members to whom this is sent and the subject is : ommercial lien debt, and it attaches the document at 328 which is perhaps worth just spending a moment or two on: Ref: commercial lien, statutory declaration void order by Administrator oskett There are then various comments about oskett J and it goes on: The so-called order is void because it represents a denial of due process of law and suspected bias, suspected masonic skullduggery, and then comments about the Queen being no longer sovereign and a reference to Magna arta, it s the same theme It refers to taking out a private criminal prosecution against oskett J for 1 million compensation, but then in further breach: We intend to publish the debt in failing to negotiate by resolution Mike larke That s 6 th ecember and if I can turn back to the affidavit paragraph 87 on 7 th ecember - and so one can see how quickly now this is starting to accumulate: Roger ayes, I suspect but don t know that that is the gentleman who described himself as Roger earlier today: of the ritish onstitution roup sent an to me at 1537 simply stating letter attached Mr ayes confirms he is acting at common law advocate on behalf of Mr larke and refers, and you ll see 88A to the perfected and enforceable commercial lien and having every right to publish the details of the lien and the order being void and making various comments about enforceability and the role of the courts and so on That of course was from Mr ayes but if you then go to paragraph 90 you ll see that Mr Johnson says he acknowledge Mr ayes on 7 th ecember and would be advising we re proceeding as previously advised, and then on 7 th ecember at 1552 Mr larke again ed all the members of the LLP attaching two letters, one being the letter from Mr ayes to me and stating that Roger ayes is now involved in the matter to offer his services, and so clearly associating himself with that letter of 7 th ecember Perhaps we should turn to page 333 where again you will see what looks like the same presumably computer generated address list to the members: Subject re: illegal, unlawful, void order ear all partners, Please find attached letters 1) from myself, 2) from ritish onstitution roup Roger ayes Roger ayes is now involved to offer his services, and we see at 336 his letter, 7 th ecember 2012: Ref: your deadline and threat of prison committal proceedings expiring at 4 pm Ref: void injunction order - number of this case: statutory declaration, commercial lien e attaches a copy of a letter sent to the court seeking a criminal prosecution against avid oskett and then advising various things including at 2): Your continuing in lying, of applying for an unlawful, and for committal will result in the lien being added to by 1 million per each individual partner/director in this company as described below eadline for voluntary resolution talks expires 10 th ecember, failure to comply will result in the publications and enforced collections against the commercial lien plus the new amounts per individual partner or director of the company, old or new, covering the last twelve months of this initial lien issued one year ago and subject to your next course of action, and so clearly threatening to enforce that lien, and 337 is a document attached described as notice of lien which I needn t read but go through similar, a similar theme So those items of correspondence I say demonstrate several of the breaches which are in the table, which I ll come back to in a moment, the only other document I think I need take you to is that of the 10 th ecember which we have at page 342 which is again sent to the same address list, it s headed: inal attempt at resolution before private criminal prosecutions This we would say is a broadening of the 18

19 A harassment in breach of the general injunction granted and needs to be read together with 429 but having - just go back to the affidavit to see how that works Paragraph 112 of the affidavit: ollowing his visit to Mr Tatton s home on 10 th ecember Mr larke, in further breach of the prohibition on contacting all members, ed members of the LLP - page 342, and he sets out there the text that you ve just seen which crossreferences to the website, and at 113 he says screen grabs of the material appearing at the acebook site available from those hyperlinks appear at pages 343 through to 428 and the letter, 114, the letter which appears in the first hyperlink page 429 and which was also attached to the is a letter addressed to all the members of the LLP which requests confirmation of up-to-date private addresses and dates of birth of all current members and directors, and (b) puts the members on notice that Mr larke intends to proceed to pursue private prosecutions against the members individually So that s the explanation of 429 which, if I just go back to that now, you will see follows a similar sort of pattern in referring to the alleged void nature of the injunction In the second paragraph towards the end of it it says: The reasoning behind seeking the remedy by way of lawful address is a commercial lien under common law which has been perfected against all partners I have again peacefully raised the issue of common law claim against all you partners to try to obtain resolution Then there follows in the next paragraph the request for the private addresses and dates of birth and the threat to pursue private prosecution cases on each person in respect of these allegations, and the concluding paragraph: Any attempt to arrest or imprison the human being Mike of the family larke under false contempt of court charges and that of warrants equipped with a name and signature, a stamped seal and addressed to the human being not the legal fiction resulting in unlawful arrest allegations to be laid at the police with subsequent charges will not stop the private criminal prosecutions to Pannone partners and will add additional dire consequences for all - which are not spelled out but clearly that is a threatening conclusion to the matter which we would say is a further promotion of the campaign of harassment That s the material that I would seek to rely upon and if one can then go back to the table MR JUSTI PLLIN: A moment - what page is that? MR TRRY: I m just looking it up, that s in the bundle for the hearing at page 179, tab 11 MR TRRY: You ll recall the table takes the form of setting out first of all the extract from the order oskett J which is said to have been breached and then in the right-hand column the matters relied upon So first of all at 3) there is the general prohibition on harassment and 1) I m not pursuing, 2) I m not pursuing, 3) is the of 3 rd ecember sent to members of the LLP attaching the statutory declaration asserting the validity of the commercial lien, that s page 316 to 7 which we ve looked at 5) is the of 5 th ecember to Mr Johnson saying that the lien will stand for ninety-eight years no matter what prison you put me in, we looked at that Then 6) of 6 th ecember in which Mr larke states the final injunction order is void and we intend to publish the debt on failing to negotiate 7) is the letter from Mr ayes of 7 th ecember and its contentions that Mr larke has an enforceable common lien against the members, a right to publish the details, that he can enforce the commercial lien and recommending private criminal prosecutions 8) is the of 7 th ecember attaching the letter of Mr ayes to Mr Johnson and the second letter to the members in which he states that failure to bring the matter then by resolution will result in the lien being added to by 1 million per each individual partner States that failure to comply will result in publication or enforced collection of the lien 19

20 A plus the new amounts, and (c) giving notice of the intended action against all the directors and partners with private prosecution 10) is the of 10 th ecember which we ve just looked at, and 11) is the uploading to the website of all the correspondence with the LLP referred to in this table including those communications which refer to the commercial lien 3)(a) the injunction is to restrain the maintaining of the existing text and postings on the website which refer to or afford any link to any document referring to the so-called commercial lien or which in any other way suggests the claimants or any of them are indebted or otherwise liable to the defendant or his mother by reason of the lien or wrongful conduct of Mr Jones as deputy of the ourt of Protection, and the complaint is the failure to remove the entries on the website which you have in full at pages 90 to 119 of exhibit PJ1 on which we ve looked at a relevant selection of extracts 3)(b) restrains the defendant from making further or other claims of the kind referred to in (a) above whether in the press or the internet or otherwise save by way of formal complaint through recognised channels and the breaches there relied upon are again at 3) the of 3 rd ecember attaching the statutory declaration asserting the validity of the lien sent to the members of the LLP, 4) the of 5 th ecember, that s the reference to the lien standing for ninety-eight years, 5) is the ritish onstitution roup letter from Mr ayes, and 6) Mr larke s of 7 th ecember 3(c) is the particular reference to the advertisement and the breaches continuing to maintain that on the website 3(d) is an injunction restraining Mr larke from taking any further steps to enforce or claim to be entitled to enforce the so-called commercial lien or the alleged debt said to be represented by the same MR JUSTI PLLIN: Then you refer to all the s that we ve MR TRRY: Again MR JUSTI PLLIN: mentioned again Yes MR TRRY: And the website yes Then 3)(e) defendant restrained from further communicating whether by or otherwise with any member of Pannone in relation to any matter concerning the commercial lien or the debt representing the same Yes that s a general prohibition on that and again 1) is out but it s the same s MR TRRY: 3 rd, 5 th, 6 th, 7 th ecember 3)(f) is the particular prohibition on communicating at all about anything with any of the members other than the three named individuals, and then there are set out those s that we ve looked at again which were sent to all the members, and probably not adding anything at 3)(g) and 3)(h) are injunctions restraining the defendant from attending or causing, requiring or encouraging any third party of the debt collection agents or otherwise to attend at residential properties of the members for the purpose of enforcement or taking steps to affect their legal titles, and it s the continuation of the advertisement which is simply relied upon for those, but it probably adds little to what has gone before MR JUSTI PLLIN: Well I m not sure the advertisement can be said to be evidence that the defendant is attending, causing, requiring or encouraging a third person to attend, it s an advertisement for a debt collecting agency to take up the cudgels, it s not MR TRRY: Yes 20