~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BANKRUPTCY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the 19th of March 1999, I made application to the Court to set aside the statutory demand for costs against me and submitted these grounds, by way of affidavit sworn by an officer of the Court.
I. That on 25th March 1999 the statutory demand exhibited
hereto and ,marked "A" came into my
hands.
2. That I have not agreed the assessed sum.
3. That to the best of my knowledge the costs have not been taxed.
4. That in an earlier action: case number 1995-H-342,
the Respondent's Solicitor, while acting as
agent for the Treasury Solicitor, unlawfully
represented this Respondent in a legal capacity and
claimed his own and a Barrister's costs
in the process.
The Respondent is a private citizen
and as such, was not entitled to the privilege of legal
representation by a Government Department,
out of public funds, for an alleged corrupt act,
At the hearing of the Respondent's application
for this action to be struck out, District Judge Hill
stayed the action until the Treasury
Solicitor's costs of the earlier action had been taxed and
paid.
This Respondent's Solicitor failed to
make District Judge Hill aware that he had unlawfully
represented the Respondent in the earlier
action, or to inform him that a bill of costs had not
been served upon me, for the reason
that this Respondent had not been entitled to legal
representation by a Government department
and that he, himself, had acted unlawfully, by so
representing her.
The Solicitor elected to inform District
Judge Hill that, a bill of costs had not been served upon
me, because the Treasury Solicitor had
not decided to have the costs taxed.
District Judge Hill, in ignorance of
the facts that, this Respondent's Solicitor had represented her
unlawfully and that the Respondent knew
full well that she was being represented in the name of
the Treasury Solicitor, ordered the
costs of that action to be paid before this action could
continue.
I did pay the costs of £1.500,
in compliance with the order.
Accordingly, I say that, because this
Solicitor unlawfully represented this Respondent and
because this Respondent should not have
enjoyed his legal representation,, the claim for costs in
the earlier action was unlawful and
I should properly be reimbursed in the same sum.
I say further that, the Respondent's
Solicitor received payment for his services, from the
Treasury Solicitor, on behalf of this
Respondent, before District Judge Hill had ordered the
costs to be taxed and paid, as did a
Barrister instructed by him to represent this Respondent.
I do not wish to be anything less than
open: honest fair and just and in that respect, I invite the
Respondent's Solicitor and the Respondent,
to swear an affidavit, stateing that, he did not act for
her unlawfully and that, she was entitled
to legal representation by a Government department.
I ask that, the adverse inference be
taken if they decline this reasonable invitation and that this
application be allowed.
Everything written is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true.
Sworn and taken at the Hull Combined Court Centre on the 31st March 1999 before an officer of the Court appointed by a Judge to take affidavits.
I didn't attend the hearing of my application to have Mrs. West's costs set aside and I was not surprised to receive an order of the Court, dated 12th of May 1999, that my application had been refused by Deputy District Judge Miller, with a further order that, I pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing of my application, to the tune of £180.00.
I received an estimated Statement of Costs, dated 27th August, from Mrs. West's Solicitor, in connection with the hearing to take place four days hence: the 31st of August 1999. The estimate was £1045.68.
Unlike the Treasury Solicitor's costs in the action against Mrs. West and Judge Simpson, which I felt obliged to pay in order that, I could continue with the action against Mrs. West, I had no intention of paying Mrs. West's costs this time. No way was I going to pay a person who, I knew, without any doubt, had falsified evidence and perjured herself at my expense, so I ignored it.
Following a petition, by Mrs. West, apparently, upon Solicitor's advice, I received an Order made by District Judge Hill dated 31st of August 1999 that, I did not expect. In his wisdom, he had adjudged me bankrupt.
Everyone knew that I was retired and depended upon my retirement and income support benefits and that we, as a family, received the minimum income that the law said we must have to live on. There were other ways to enforce payment of outstanding debts and I was baffled, but not for too long.
Upon a meeting with an officer out of the Official Receiver's Office, I was given to understand by that gentleman that, I would be unable to finance proceedings through the Courts, without consent of the Official Receiver and that, as I was on income support with no other income, consent would not be forthcoming.
So then it hit me: Mrs. Justice Smith had been unable to declare me a vexatious litigant in the High Court, because of the official and other documentary evidence that supported my allegations against Mrs. West and now this alternative method was being used to gag me.
It dawned on me, at that time, what District Judge Hill had in mind, when he told me that I would not be able to institute further proceedings in any Court in the Country.
The member of he Official Receiver's staff seemed sympathetic to my
plight, to the extent of suggesting that I write to the leader of the opposition:
William Haig, about my allegations. It appeared that he understood the
reason for a person reliant upon income support, being made bankrupt and
I did write to William Haig and if memory serves, I sent a floppy disk
with my website address, which linked to the abundant scanned evidence
in support of my allegations, Alas, I have received no acknowledgement
of my communication.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Seventeen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~