Sarah Adlam joined MCP in May 1996 and is now the Managing Partner of the Peterborough
office specialising in all Civil litigation matters. She is a member of the Association
of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel.
sarah.adlam@mcp-
Lisa Richardson’s boss. . . . Oooh look! . . . part of the Law Society . . how convenient. . . what’s the chance of them investigating why she did nothing about HER crooked employee at the Peterborough office. . . . about a million to one I should think.
This is a very LONG RANT which proves the Impropriety of Sarah Adlam at Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifar @ MCP Law. Norfolk. And her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings. If you want to take it as read and skip to the bottom of the page .and MEET the INCREDIBLES . . . click here .
MCP Law went to the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench and obtained a “without notice
injunction” restraining me from calling or even insinuating that their clients mentioned
throughout this web-
They
managed this by producing incomplete evidence to suit their case and
The order restraining me is a curious
beast in the extreme. . . this injunction was NOT brought for Defamation or even
Libel . . . . . . and there is plenty of both on this site. . . . . or there would
be if the content herein were untrue. . . .
They knew this of course so they got
the injunction for harassment. Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A law quite
properly conceived to protect vulnerable women (especially) from stalkers but has
been misused (but will not any longer since . . . Conn v Sunderland City Council
and Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd http://www.hilldickinson.com/downloadfile.aspx?ID=409
)
A law which has been abused by charlatan solicitors to protect Company Directors
and the like from honest criticism or protest exactly as they did to me. See also
Smash EDO v EDO typically on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334463.html
So
by abusing the Law like this they gained an injunction to protect from an harassment
that NEVER happened, and got an order that forbids me naming either of their clients.
. . In other words a gagging order suitable for DEFAMATION only.
But that is NOT what this page is all about.
From the following circumstances it is
clear MCP NEVER intended this case to go to trial. . . . quite apart from the fact
they would have lost hands down.. . . . and that’s without the PERJURY involved.
If
they were acting solely on behalf of their clients MCP would have excused themselves.
. . in fact it was their DUTY to do so.
http://www.sra.org.uk/code-
The Solicitors Regulation Authority
11.06 Appearing as a witness
You must not appear as an advocate at a trial or act in the litigation if it is clear
that you, or anyone within your firm, will be called as a witness, unless you are
satisfied that this will not prejudice your independence as an advocate, or litigator,
or the interests of your client or the interests of justice.
http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/publications/jerseylawreview/June99/case_summaries.aspx
Hirschfield
and another v Sinel
Three issues arose:-
1. whether Mr Sinel was barred from acting for Mrs Hirschfield because he would be
a witness at trial;
Held, answering each issue in the affirmative:-
It was clear that Mr Sinel would be a material witness as to a number of issues.
Following English authority and the Bar’s Code of Conduct, the position in Jersey
law was the same as in England: a Jersey advocate is not permitted to act on behalf
of a client and to appear as a witness in the same proceedings, except where the
advocate’s evidence is purely formal. Mr Sinel could not continue to represent Mrs
Hirschfield in any of the existing proceedings, and should not have appeared in the
present proceedings.
The Court therefore ordered that Mr Sinel be restrained from
representing Mrs Hirschfield in the various proceedings . . . .
INDEPENDENCE??? . . . I’m calling her a CROOK on these pages. . . . and There is
NOTHING she can do about it. . . she’s not independent in the least.
INDEPENDENCE??? . . . Jonathan Burton wrote 10 pages of affidavit TESTIFYING on OATH
what a nasty man I am and explaining . . . dishonestly . . . why he,and Lisa Richardson
(the Lovely Lisa) and their clients . . . conspired to LIE to me over and over again..
. .
My letter to David Rutter in Sept 2006 . and My previous letters to MCP turned
out to be entirely true. . . . They had to admit that since they were under oath
but Burton’s testimony calls it . . . “On reflection that was not entirely accurate
since our clients were aware of the dispute when they agreed to buy the property.”
. . . ALL their letters to me previously had denied this . . . in a clear attempt
to avoid any outstanding debts and responsibilities.
After Jan 2007 that became FRAUD.
Too late to catch this criminal behaviour? . . . no . . It is covered under the THEFT
Act . . . Evasion of Liability by Deception.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312
Section 2 of the 1978 Theft Act can be viewed as three offences in one. It covers,
in section 2(1)(a) the 'remission of liability', that is, existing debts that are,
through deception resulting in an agreement, either reduced or waived. Section 2(1)(b)
covers 'inducing a creditor to wait for or forgo payment', that is, to deceive the
creditor into thinking that they will receive their money later, or that they do
not need to pay, for example by claiming they have already paid. Section 2(1)(c)
covers 'obtaining exemption from or abatement of liability', . . . . . . that is
the possibility of future debts.
Which in my case is the risk of payment to repair
the rot and damp in my floors, and the avoidance of the £1,000 solicitors fees owed
for the removal of the flue . . . . ., AND their scheme to increase our insurance
premiums by avoiding the previous arrangement. Or whatever else was their reason
for the lies.
Which MIGHT or MIGHT not be established or accepted. . . . BUT as I
have always claimed throughout this site is covered by CONSPIRACY to DEFRAUD CONTRARY
to COMMON LAW. . . . The hardest thing to prove in such a CONSPIRACY is that it took
place . . . Well I don’t have to prove it . . .
J Burton has sworn to it on OATH
. . . calling it ‘consulting’ does NOT make it less of a CONSPIRACY.http://www.mcp-
Or put much more simply in
Welham v DPP [1961] AC
103, 133, per Lord Denning.
Put shortly, “with intent to defraud” means “with intent to practise a fraud” on
someone or other … If anyone may be prejudiced in any way by the fraud, that is enough.
In Wai Yu-
And ANYONE
even thinking of Lying in print in future should read this before they do
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-
The
new Fraud Act -
The Fraud Bill 2006 is a wake up call for all those intermediaries who
don’t mind engaging in time travel to make documents look like they have been signed
yesterday or last year when they are actually hot off the press and all those who
do a Nelson when it comes to ignoring the bleedin' obvious (Monty Python's words
not mine).
However, the parts the Act that may be most pertinent to intermediaries and their clients concern(section 2), fraud by false representation (section 3), fraud by failing to disclose information (section 4) and fraud by abuse of position
Under section 2 a person is in breach if he makes a false representation and intends
by that falsehood to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another
or to expose another to a risk of loss.
This phrase "to expose another to a risk
of loss" crops up in all three of the sections mentioned in this article. As far
as I am aware this has introduced a new type of fraud which looks like it requires
a lesser degree of proof than hitherto. In other words it may be easier to convict
someone because the prosecution will not need to prove that a loss occurred beyond
reasonable doubt but only that there was a risk of loss.
And writing letters (three) that tell a pack of lies, in order to effect that loss, over a period of MONTHS . . . . qualifies hands down.
This is schoolboy law, it’s so “bleeding obvious”.
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_42_inchoate_conspiracy.htm
Wai Yu-
[Conspiracy -
If anyone may be prejudiced in ANY WAY by the fraud, that is enough'.
Verdict
GUILTY.
SO you can see; that Jonathan Burton and Lisa Richardson have a lot of explaining
to do . . . it’s called .. . Giving evidence in the witness box.
So Sarah Adlam CLEARLY
would have known . . . or definitely SHOULD have known she had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER
to be in that Courtroom AT ALL . . . let alone acting on the behalf of MCP’s clients.
And I see no reason why David Rutter should not be called to give evidence as to
why my letter to HIM, which was not unreasonable given they had lied to me for 6
months . . . . A CRIMINAL OFFENCE under the FRAUD ACT . . was not only was ignored
by him at the time but was subsequently left out of the injunction application file
and also the page of the website it appeared on. . . ie . . . deceiving the Court.
. . . (if you are going to produce a website as evidence . . you have to produce
it ALL . . . Not to do so is like producing a book with pages you don't want a Judge
to see . . . torn out . . . which is EXACTLY what they did.
The reason they left it
out of course is . . . because "under the circumstances" it was VERY REASONABLE .
. . and gave fair warning and intention . . that they could have prevented simply
by telling the TRUTH.
INDEPENDENCE?? Not ONLY was Sarah Adlam ineligible for all
of the above reasons. . .
. . . . . three days after they had got this ‘injunction
without notice’ on behalf of THEIR CLIENTS. . . . MCP Threatened to sue themselves
on THEIR OWN BEHALF for the content on this site if I didn’t shut my web-
Well being called a CROOK is a certainty isn’t it? . . . .not if it’s TRUE it
ain’t.
But faced with my reply
“I HAVE NO INTENTION of taking
any notice of your THREAT to comply by Thursday. With what I now have in my possession
I will see you in any Court in the World never mind Land.”
They dropped the matter.
Which
is a shame for THEM . . . Since all the content they complained of is now more than
A YEAR OLD. . . Google Search . . Defamation limitation . .
Defamation requires prompt
action at law to preserve reputation ...
The time limit for defamation actions has been progressively reduced: from 6 years
to 3 years in 1984 and again from 3 years to one year in 1996. ...
www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/122.cfm
-
. . . she had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in that Courtroom AT ALL . . . Let alone
acting on the behalf of MCP’s clients.
But she wasn’t was she ?. . . . she was there
ACTING ON HER BEHALF AND MCP’s BEHALF . . . and MCP’s barrister Matthew Hutchings
would have or SHOULD HAVE known that. . . . . so he is as bad as she since MCP had
NO RIGHT to retain him. . . . a respectable firm of solicitors could have done so
. . . But NOT MCP. . . . They had NO RIGHT to retain ANYONE
. . . It gets WORSE.
Notwithstanding all of the above; . . . the minute I took some
friendly advice and went to my Solicitor to get probably the best Barrister around
for this sort of thing. (he’s represents Rupert Murdoch in these matters) . . and
was delighted to take the case . .. . . . “I love a challenge.” . . . and after
he had entered a proper defence that DENIES every claim made against me.
MCP wanted
to settle. . . . . Well I wasn’t having any of it . . . I wasn’t going to bargain
with CROOKS . . . But I was persuaded to; what is known as Act Reasonably since it
would greatly enhance my case and make a costs award very difficult for the other
side to get.
So I went along with it . . . I didn’t believe for a moment it would
work . . . And once again I was proved entirely correct.
Consequently early in the
year MCP on behalf of their clients, offered to sell the freehold of the premises
to us, particularly the shop in question.
But that was no good to us since we are
still in dispute with the NEW tenant they had installed under very dubious circumstances,
and he had driven our tenants out. . . . (another story for later)
BUT in the interest
of ‘reasonableness’ we offered to sell the flat to which they agreed with an alacrity
that was laughable. But the trouble was they wanted the flat at the common market
valuation, which WE would have to obtain at OUR ex pence. . . . . which was no good
to us since the flat is severely blighted by THEIR behaviour and liabilities. .
. . Have a look at it.
So we countered with an offer to sell and resolve the dispute
for 2/3 the value of THE WHOLE building . . . which was fair since we own 2/3 of
whole building and WI Properties wanted to charge us 2/3 the cost of the insurance.
An
offer that they COMPLETELY IGNORED . . . . . And by IGNORED I mean for 6 months.
. . . Despite reminders from my own Solicitors.
INDEPENDENCE??? . . . we never were going to get a settlement with MCP running the
show. . .
MCP to my Solicitor 11/05/07
“Additionally we would need some form of
undertaking from your client in relation to him not re-
Eventually in DECEMBER
and quite correctly my Solicitor gave them 7 days to settle the matter or we would
apply for dismissal. . . . . They STILL didn’t reply so that is what he did.
THAT
woke them up . . . MCP begged for more time . . . WI Properties got one of their
henchman (MUCH more about HIM later) to blag his way into our flat without asking
or our knowledge and got a local firm of Estate Agents to value it on the cheap.
. . . BUT TOOK NO NOTICE OF OUR OFFER.
That’s called Abuse of Process. . . . And Sarah
Adlam would have known or SHOULD have known that. . . . If she didn’t she was reminded
of it by my own solicitor in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS after they finally replied making
a derisory offer for the flat they presumed we would jump at. Because they include
this valuable offer too.
“If the purchase price can be agreed there is of course still
the question of the proceedings to be dealt with. We would suggest that there is
a consent order to the effect that the injunction be made permanent (we presume your
client will have no objection to this in the circumstances) . . . [WELL YOU CERTAINLY
GOT THAT WRONG PAL], . . . neither party would pursue the other for damages . .
. [AND THAT] . . . And each party will bear their own costs. . . . . . [OH! WILL
THEY? . . . YOU GOT THAT WRONG TOO.]
Sarah Adlam MCP
So Ms Adlam, when your client; plaintiff 1 is in the nick for PERJURY.
I’m going to
agree not to not tell anyone???? . . . ARE YOU KIDDING???
It’ll be in every newspaper
in the land. . . . Do a search on Tommy Sheridan perjury and see what you get. http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=
tommy+sheridan+perjury&go=Search&form=QBRE
My solicitor’s reply was far more polite
than my own would have been.
19th December 2007
“Whilst we note your comments, the
point initially here, is your client’s failure to prosecute the case, diligently
or at all, and failures to agree to the discharge of the injunction amount and dispute
of process. Particularly so as we do not accept any of our client’s activities or
actions have ever amounted to harassment . .
The fact is is that your clients have
been content to “sit on the injunction” indefinitely and seek to extract a positive
outcome by oppression over our client.”
our client has afforded your clients an opportunity
to settle the matter and all agree to a discharge of the injunction forthwith. Your
clients have chosen not to do so and therefore face the risk of an adverse Costs
Order on our client’s application for discharge of your client’s injunction.
In the
circumstances, we look forward to receiving from you, for our approval, a draft Consent
Order very shortly which will be required to deal with the question of our client’s
costs and damages.
THOSE are correct circumstances given their disgraceful behaviour.
Sarah Adlam is a disgrace to the legal profession. And I intend . . . . . .. . if
she was the one who wrote plaintiff 1’s affidavit and KNEW that there was no EVIDENCE
to back up his outrageous claim to my behaviour, and therefore KNEW it was a lie,
ie PERJURYas ANY reasonable solicitor WOULD have done, never mind SHOULD have. .
. . to prosecute her . . . her client and MCP . . . privately if the Police can’t
be bothered AGAIN. . . with PERJURY and CONSPIRACY to PERJURE
You can’t get away
with that on Judge Judy never mind the High Court . . . . “he faxed extracts from
his websites to me” to his home presumably since he “really upset my poor old granny.”
. . .
Judge Judy . . . “So where are they then? . . . You can’t come into this Court
claiming such outrageous behaviour without bringing the documents or at least a printout
of the received fax log.”
They weren’t in the file . . . because it never happened
. . . and a BT print out will prove it. . . .
ALL THE POLICE WILL NEED TO DO IS ASK
MCP Law WHAT WAS No of the FAX MACHINE that their client SWORE on OATH . . I was
supposed to have faxed (plural) these “extracts (plural) of his web-
AND
EVEN IF I HAD HAVE SENT THESE FAXES TO HIS HOME and upet his poor old granny. IT
IS HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN SENDING TO, AND YOU CAN’T HARASS
A BUSINESS or a COMPANY IN LAW. . .http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-
Can
the Act be used to protect companies from harassment? Strictly speaking no, but the
Act can be used to protect company employees under civil injunctions
(The plaintiff is not an employee who can be protected. . . he’s the owner . . who chooses to mix his business with his home life . . . who chooses whether to defraud people or not) MERELY ADDRESSING SOMETHING TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS DOESN’T MAKE IT HARASSMENT TO THE PERSON. . . No matter how much “it upsets his granny”.
DISTRESSED? . . . . YEAH RIGHT!
Which is why we have not had a single additional witness statement that should have
been produced in April 2007 that we asked for.
Jonathan Burton joined the firm in 1982 after training in London. He has developed an enviable reputation in dealing with the finer points of agricultural and commercial property law together with the tax issues that arise.
In common with his other three colleagues Jonathan has worked at and from several
of the firm's offices representing clients throughout the West Anglia region and
beyond. Jonathan pioneered the firm's practice overseas forming connections with
legal practices in the Czech Republic.
jonathan.burton@mcp-
Commercial Property Law . . . He should know then
Lisa Richardson works in Commercial Property and has been with MCP since 2003. She works with sale and purchase of commercial or mixed property by private treaty or through public auction, drafting and negotiating of residential and commercial leases, licences to assign, licences for alterations and general commercial property work.
Lisa specialises in general property work for Registered Social Landlords and before MCP worked within the legal department of a Registered Social Landlord and in a firm of solicitors within their Social Housing Department. Lisa has also worked on street purchases/sales under the Right to Buy and Right to Acquire legislation, land purchases for development, negotiating section 106 agreements and equity loan schemes. She is a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives.
HERE NOW
www.metcalfecope
manpettifar.co.uk
www.mcp-
www.lawyerbaiting.co.uk
www.iwg-
www.dennissmatthews.org www.dennissmatthews.co.uk
COMING SOON
www.ffffffffeeeeeee.org.uk
www.ffffffffeeeeeee.info
www.sssssss-
NEXT TIME YOUR OFFERED A ‘REASON-
DON’T PISS THE OTHER SIDE OFF BY IGNORING IT FOR SIX MONTHS.
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
DISCLAIMER . . Click here
My claims made on this and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman
& Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should
have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure
of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss
Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but
they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions
that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the
opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it
that is.
In fact the reason they didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson
DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they
DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought
the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH
by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant
to deceive.”
2006
2008
The IMPROPRIETY of Sarah Adlam prosecuting Solicitor (and her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings)
LET’S SEE YOU IGNORE THIS LAW SOCIETY . .or whatever you call yourselves these days.
You’ve
always managed to before. . . Ie Saturday, 18 November 2006 . . Alex Sutherland,
Conduct Assessment and Investigation Unit., The Law Society of England and Wales.,
Dear Alex re CROOKS Metcalfe Copeman and Pettefar Norfolk Solicitors . . .
Ooops
where’s my manners . . thank you for your letter of 17th. Quite frankly I could have
written it for you. It is so predictable. . . . . Click here . . . What was the time
before that you told me . . . “You have no evidence to show that Lister & Wood Solicitors
knew enough about the Law to know they were lying to you.” . . You people. No wonder
the legal profession is held in such contempt. . .
Is it god’s little irony that the acronym of The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
. . is . TOSS’ors?
Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 5(2) preserved the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud
Scott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1974] UKHL 4 (20 November 1974); [1975] AC 819, 839, per Viscount Dilhorne:
… “to defraud” ordinarily means … to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud be entitled.
Welham v DPP [1961] AC 103, 133, per Lord Denning.
Put shortly, “with intent to defraud” means “with intent to practise a fraud” on someone or other … If anyone may be prejudiced in any way by the fraud, that is enough.
In Wai Yu-
In Welham v DPP [1961] AC 103 Lord Radcliffe at p.123 said:
"Now, I think that there are one or two things that can be said with confidence about the meaning of this word "defraud". It requires a person as its object: that is, defrauding involves doing something to someone. Although in the nature of things it is almost invariably associated with the obtaining of an advantage for the person who commits the fraud, it is the effect upon the person who is the object of the fraud that ultimately determines its meaning. This is none the less true because since the middle of the last century the law has not required an indictment to specify the person intended to be defrauded or to prove intent to defraud a particular person.
Secondly, popular speech does not give, and I do not think ever has given, any sure guide as to the limits of what is meant by "to defraud". It may mean to cheat someone. It may mean to practise a fraud upon someone. It may mean to deprive someone by deceit of something which is regarded as belonging to him, or though not belonging to him, as due to him or his right.
... There is nothing in any of this that suggests that to defraud is in ordinary speech confined to the idea of depriving a man by deceit of some economic advantage or inflicting upon him some economic loss.
Has the law ever so confined it? In my opinion there is no warrant for saying that it has. What it has looked for in considering the effect of cheating upon another person and so in defining the criminal intent is the prejudice of that person: what Blackstone (Commentaries, 18th ed., vol. 4 at p. 247) called to the prejudice of another man's right"
And Lord Denning said at p.131:
"If anyone may be prejudiced in any way by the fraud, that is enough. -
and
These scholars seem to think they have found the solution. "To defraud", they say,
involves the idea of economic loss. I cannot agree with them on this. If a drug addict
forges a doctor's prescription so as to enable him to get drugs from a chemist, he
has, I should have thought, an intent to defraud, even though he intends to pay the
chemist the full price and no-
Fussell & Anor, R v [1997] EWCA Crim 1764 (9th July, 1997)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/2685.html K, G & M, R. v] [2004] EWCA Crim 2685 (02 November 2004) The ground on which leave was given and, in our judgment, the only arguable point on the appeal, related to the application to the offence of conspiracy to defraud of the principle that the jury must be unanimous on the ingredients of the offence.
Conspiracy to defraud: dishonesty
Ghosh, R. v [1982] EWCA Crim 2 (05 April 1982) In McIvor the Court of Appeal sought to reconcile these conflicting lines of authority. They did so on the basis that the subjective test is appropriate where the charge is conspiracy to defraud, but in the case of theft, the test should be objective. We quote the relevant passage in full:
"It seems elementary, first, that where the charge is conspiracy to defraud the prosecution must prove actual dishonesty in the minds of the defendants in relation to the agreement concerned, and, second, that where the charge is an offence contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew or was reckless regarding the representation concerned. The passage in my judgment in R. v. Landy to which we have referred should be read in relation to charges of conspiracy to defraud, and not in relation to charges of theft contrary to section 1 of the 1968 Act. Theft is in a different category from conspiracy to defraud, so that dishonesty can be established independently of the knowledge or belief of the defendant, subject to the special cases provided for in section 2 of the Act. Nevertheless, where a defendant has given evidence of his state of mind at the time of the alleged offence, the jury should be told to give that evidence such weight as they consider right, and they may also be directed that they should apply their own standards to the meaning of dishonesty."
In Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1975) A. C. 819, the House of Lords had to consider whether deceit is a necessary element in the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud. They held that it is not. It is sufficient for the Crown to prove dishonesty. In the course of his speech Viscount Dilhorne traced the meaning of the words "fraud", "fraudulently" and "defraud" in relation to simple larceny, as well as the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. After referring to Stephen. History of the Criminal Law of England and East's Pleas of the Crown, he continued at page 836 of the report as follows:
"The Criminal Law Revision Committee in their Eighth Report on 'Theft and Related Offences' (1966) (Cmnd., 2977) in paragraph 33 expressed the view that the important element of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion was 'undoubtedly the dishonest appropriation of another person's property'; in paragraph 35 that the words 'dishonestly appropriates' meant the same as 'fraudulently converts to his own use or benefit, or the use or benefit of any other person', and in paragraph 39 that 'dishonestly' seemed to them a better word than 'fraudulently'.
Parliament endorsed these views in the Theft Act 1968, which by section 1(1) defined theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Section 17 of that Act replaces sections 82 and 83 of the Larceny Act 1861 and the Falsification of Accounts Act 1875. The offences created by those sections and by that Act made it necessary to prove that there had been an 'intent to defraud'. Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 substitutes the words 'dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another' for the words 'intent to defraud'. "If 'fraudulently' in relation to larceny meant 'dishonestly' and 'intent to defraud' in relation to falsification of accounts is equivalent to the words now contained in section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 which I have quoted, it would indeed be odd if 'defraud' in the phrase 'conspiracy to defraud' has a different meaning and means only a conspiracy which is to be carried out by deceit." Later on in the same speech Viscount Dilhorne continued as follows:
"As I have said, words take colour from the context in which they are used, but the words 'fraudulently' and 'defraud' must ordinarily have a very similar meaning. If, as I think, and as the Criminal Law Revision Committee appears to have thought, 'fraudulently' means 'dishonestly', then 'to defraud' ordinarily means, in my opinion, to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud be entitled. "
In Scott the House of Lords were only concerned with the question whether deceit is an essential ingredient in cases of conspiracy to defraud; and they held not. As Lord Diplock said at page 841, "dishonesty of any kind is enough". But there is nothing in the case of Scott which supports the view that, so far as the element of dishonesty is concerned, "theft is in a different category from conspiracy to defraud". On the contrary the analogy drawn by Viscount Dilhorne between the two offences, and indeed the whole tenor of his speech, suggests the precise opposite.
And Sarah Adlam and Matthew Hutchings would have known or absolutely should have known all of this. . . . But failed to point it out to the Judge as is their sworn duty as officers of the Court to do so.
Choosing instead to present Howlett v Holding . . . as precedent.
A case that has so little to do with my case, that the presentation of it can only be described as deceit.
It concerns a RICH vindictive man pursuing a pensioner in retribution of a planning decision she made years ago with the purpose of “making her life hell.” over a period of 4/5 years.
The Claimant, a former Labour councillor, had already successfully sued the defendant
twice in defamation. She was now granted a permanent injunction pursuant to the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 (“the Act”). The Defendant had (1) flown banners from an
aircraft and dropped leaflets from time to time, referring to C in abusive and derogatory
terms and (2) put her under surveillance in the hope of proving she was a benefit
cheat.
In granting the injunction preventing D from continuing the actions detailed above, Eady J held that the evidence before him disclosed a clear and consistent campaign of harassment over 4/5 years.
All the nasty bits were highlighted as if they could possibly relate to my case.
Which here are two RICH arrogant men being ‘named and shamed’ by a pensioner to protect
his own property from them and their tenant . . . . over a period of 4/5 Days.
These
are bits that are relevant to my case are however . . . and were NOT highlighted.
It
was held in the past, for example in Crest Homes v Ascott [1980] FSR 396, that in
a libel context it would not be right to restrain by interim order publication of
defamatory words – however offensively expressed and by whatever means –provided
the relevant defendant indicated that it was genuinely his intention to justify his
allegations. That was an application of the rule in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch
269 in rather striking circumstances. The Defendant had been driving his rather grand
motor car around an estate recently developed by the claimant company, with his front
door strapped to the top of the vehicle and rude remarks painted on it about the
quality of its workmanship. The issues here are not that simple. This is not an application
for an interim order in a libel action. The proceedings are brought under CPR Part
8, as prescribed for harassment cases.
And
Eady J thought that the defence of the prevention or detection of crime under the
Prohibition of Harassment Act 1997, s 1(3) (see note 302) was framed with law enforcement
agencies in mind. He added that, even if a private individual was entitled to avail
himself of it, he would have to show that there was, objectively judged, some rational
basis for the conduct to be undertaken to prevent or detect crime.
That defence was
allowed but was dismissed quite rightly. . . . He had no reason to suspect a crime
. . .
I DO. . . . . three “dishonest letters” each telling more lies than the last.
Paid for by the plaintiffs.
SEE
More Impropriety of Sarah Adlam Solicitor MCP Law
if you missed the link previously
and why MCP can’t win this malicious prosecution.
And Sarah Adlam would have known or should have known that as well, AND SO SHOULD
THE BARRISTER. Matthew Hutchins. . . PLUS it was HIS JOB to point it out to the Judge
too.
http://www.sra.org.uk/code-
11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court
(1) You must never deceive or knowingly or
recklessly mislead the court.
(2)You must draw to the court's attention:
(a)
relevant cases and statutory provisions;
( b) the contents of any document that
has been filed in the proceedings where failure to draw it to the court's attention
might result in the court being misled; and
(c) any procedural irregularity.
Which just about includes ALL of the above.
And to top it all . . . . for this totally fictitious hurt and distress that I am
supposed to have sent to plaintiff 1’s house that so upset his Granny he has been
losing sleep over it . . . because unless he took the faxes home and showed his poor
old elderly relative in ORDER TO BLAME ME how could she possibly have known otherwise.
. . . .Besides any other fax I may have sent to his place of work . . is clearly
IDENTIFIED as such. . . . . Which sooo “distressed him” for no more than a week
even if I had known his FAX No .
These greedy bastards are suing me for £50,000 .
. . that’s right . . . . £50 grand the sort of money you can expect if you lose two
legs. PLUS these greedy solicitors have submitted costs of £15,000 for what can only
be described as a day on a photo copier . . . copying a foot thick pile of totally
irrelevant files and pages . . totally irrelevant to a charge of harassment..
When
in fact . . . . This letter is the ONLY unsolicited communication of ANY kind
WHATSOEVER addressed to either plaintiff . . . .EVER.
And the second plaintiff . . HAS NEVER HAD ANY communication addressed to him WHATSOEVER. . . . . OF ANY KIND. . . EVER . . . He’s just in for the money. . . and Sarah Adlam and Matthew Hutchings knew that too
Did I say to top it all? . . . . NO THIS TOPS IT ALL
Sarah Adlam statements about my behaviour, which I consider perjury.
From her sworn statement.
10 On 22nd November 2006 The Defendant wrote and sent by FAX or caused to be sent
by FAX to the said offices of FE a print out from a web page.
She then goes on to quote EXTENSIVELY from it . . ..
OH NO I DIDN’T . . . . . . . .the one that is in the file is so indistinct as to be illegible.
EVEN SO her interpretation of that web-
She quotes from the web page.
“Well it’s now gone 22nd Nov and no word from KKKK or his sidekick. If I asked you
if you were a crook you’d be able to tell me wouldn’t you?
“How Famous do you want
to be wwwww kkkkkkk . . .?”
9 . . . In their natural meaning the said words meant that the Claimants had not answered the question referred to because the Claimants were guilty of dishonest conduct, which meaning was untrue.
NO IT DOESN’T and she and Hutchings knew that too . . .
CLICK HERE . . . . . or
carry on down and follow link later. for “More Impropriety of Sarah Adlam
And even if it did SO WHAT!!!! the words (TRUE or NOT) have ABSOLUTE NOTHING to do with HARASSMENT WHATSOEVER but refer to Defamation . . . . . AS SHE & Hutchings WELL KNEW as well.
FURTHER the print out of the web page that is in the file . . . . Has a very vital
part of it missing . . . and that is disclaimer printed at the bottom of every page
including this very one.
We still don’t know if the claimant’s were guilty of ‘dishonest’
conduct. . . . Because WE HAVE NOT received ANY of the PROOF we have asked for. But
PERJURY counts as pretty dishonest in my book.
What we do know is . . . . AND SHE DID TOO being part of the same firm . . . Is
that her her clients were part of the same Conspiracy to Defraud that I have shown
between J Burton and Lisa Richardson . . . So for her to claim “which meaning was
untrue” . . . .
Is UNTRUE and she knew it.
She then goes on to refer to a ‘private
page’ published on the inter-
She quotes ONE paragraph
from it. . . . . A quote addressed to MCP.
“ It is difficult to see what explanation
you could give after all this time that could possibly convince me that you did not
with KKKK AND CCCCC . . Conspire to Defraud Contrary to Common Law . . . ie page
10 Conduct falling under this heading consists of an agreement by two or more persons
to dishonestly deprive another of something which belongs to that person, or to which
he/she would be or might be entitled to, and an agreement by two or more persons
to injure some proprietary rights of another, by dishonesty.
Your client should be
put worried about being put away quite honestly.”
Quite apart from the fact she leaves
out ALL the rest of the page . . . And does not submit it in the affidavit file
as she does anything else she wants the Judge to see..
She then goes on to say .
13.
. . In their natural meaning the said words meant that the Claimants had not answered
the question referred to because the Claimants were guilty of dishonest conduct,
which meaning was untrue.
SO WHAT!!!! the words (TRUE or NOT) have ABSOLUTE NOTHING
to do with HARASSMENT WHATSOEVER but refer to Defamation . . . . . AGAIN AS SHE WELL
KNEW since she produced the precedent for it.
And even then it wouldn’t be defamation because . . . . she knew perfectly well that every word of that statement IS TRUE. .. given what had gone on. . . . and is why THEY DIDN’T sue me for DEFAMATION.
Her clients were perfectly aware that the letters they paid MCP for and send to me
on their behalf constituted Conspiracy to Defraud, which made them part of that conspiracy.
. . . and if they didn’t they only had to read my website to find out. . . . which
they must have done in order to complain of them. . . . AND THEY CERTAINLY DID BY
THEY TIME THEY DECIDED TO SUE.
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Accomplice
To prove the defendant was an Accomplice the prosecution only need to prove he knew
the type of crime that was going to be committed and intend to render assistance
in contemplation of the crime which was committed. Assistance and encouragement is
generally at the time of the commission of the crime but need not be.
The Accomplice
need not be physically present at the actual scene of the crime when it is committed.
Presence at the scene of the crime will not necessarily establish guilt as an aider
and abetter. Although, presence at the scene of the crime may amount to encouragement
in certain circumstances; usually a degree of participation is required.
An accomplice
must intend to aid abet counsel or procure the principle/s and therefore he is guilty
of an offence of specific intent. The intent is to encourage or assist. The prosecution
does not need to prove that the accomplice intended that the offence should be committed
just so long as he is aware in a general way of the kind of offence in contemplation
by the principle/s.
And PAYING someone to do so, as the plaintiffs did . . . qualifies hands down.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963160_en_4.htm
3) A person may be guilty of conspiracy to defraud if—
(a) a party to the agreement constituting the conspiracy, or a party's agent, did anything in Northern Ireland in relation to the agreement before its formation, or
(b) a party to it became a party in Northern Ireland (by joining it either in person or through an agent), or
Quite when plaintiffs joined this CONSPIRACY is not clear . . . but the FACT IS
THEY DID. Sarah Adlam is perfectly aware of the Law and KNOWS THIS TO BE TRUE . .
. . . and to say otherwise IS A LIE
Especially to the High Court. . . and if she doesn’t
know it’s printed here for her on the right.
THAT’S CALLED PERJURY. . . . And of the worse kind since it is in support of her own client’s PERJURY of which she could not possibly have been unaware . (The only other way his Granny could have been upset is if HE had told her. . so that part of his statement is a LIE too.)
WHICH IS CALLED PERJURY.
You can’t quote EXTENSIVELY from an EXHIBIT without producing AND identifying it to the High Court . ANY solicitor or Tom Dick or Harry knows that . . . . and so did she.
What I did send on or about that day is a ONE line fax in response (ie NOT unsolicited) to the 1st plaintiff’s UNSOLICITED email to me a day or so before., demanding an explanation. . . . . my FAX.
My answer to W N K . . . . . Page 20 .. .. . . . AND THAT IS IT.
. . . . . THAT fax I did send. . . . . ISN’T in the file . . Because it would have
shown that the page on the inter-
It was a REPLY to an UNSOLICITED email . .
. . sent DIRECTLY TO ME despite countless instructions from me not to do so. . .
. . HERE . . & . . . HERE . . . . which she knew about but failed to inform the Court
. . . and you can’t present evidence that is NOT unsolicited as if it were and THEN
call that harassment. . . . . . and she knew that too and so did Matthew Hutchings
. . . and it was his job to point THAT out to the Judge too.
The fact that this REPLY
was not what plaintiff 1 wanted to hear or was not as polite as he would have wished
. . . . . . . IS TOUGH LUCK. . . . .
Publishing critical material on the inter-
But FAXING unsolicited material to someone’s home might be. (but not in this case as I have pointed out)
MCP Law, their barrister Matthew Hutchings and their clients knew this so they CONCOCTED a pack of LIES and misleading evidence to try to show that I had been FAXING unsolicited material to plaintiff 1’s home in order to get this injunction. . . . for HARASSMENT.
WHATEVER transpires as the truth of iall above. . . . SHE KNEW (AND SO DID HE) DAMN WELL THAT MY BEHAVIOUR WAS NOT HARASSMENT. . . . AND THAT SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS CASE.
AND EVEN IF I HAD DONE ALL SHE and her clients claim. . . Then I am perfectly entitled
to by virtue of “Investigating a Crime Defence“.
A crime which she KNEW PERFECTLY
WELL for a FACT (by virtue of her position at MCP) HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. There
is NO ambiguity in this law.
I intend therefore to charge by private prosecution if
necessary all those who DID KNOW it was a pack of lies with CONSPIRACY TO PERJURE.
Jailed
Lib Dem donor forced into bankruptcy -
in jil after his bankers HSBC won a private prosecution for perjury -
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/19/cnbrown119.xml
-
Yes Sarah Adlam I do have an objection . . . . . mostly towards LYING SOLICITORS.
. . . . . .
Colin Cole
NOW GO AND MEET THE UNCREDIBLES . . “An everyday story of Country (NI) Folk”
”You’ll have to learn how to use one of these wwwww. If you could, you’d have known
you were paying those GREEDY BASTARDS to lie to Mr Cole. . . It’s ALL here on his
web-
all the time and we’ll SUE HIM. Back to bed with you now all that “sleep you are losing” is wearing you out
“OK Grandma . . . I’ll use those CROOKS at Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifar. . . They won’t mind deceiving the Court. . . . They’ll do anything for money. . . Theft and Ex torsion are not strangers to them”
And the reason they HAD to use Metcalfe Copeman Pettifar albeit unlawfully is that they knew an honest firm of solicitors would’t touch this case with a bargepole.
In the history of the known World. Has one dealer in ANY commodity, EVER purchased
a property from ANOTHER dealer, knowing full well there was something wrong with
it. And PAID THE FULL PRICE?
The answer is of course NO. . . . unless your Irish
of course.
The Law Society’s incredible intervention, into spoof/parody sites is as noxious as the FA having a go at the News of the World for reporting a Football Player for snorting drugs. What The Law Society of England & Wales should do . . is exactly what the FA do . . . fine Solicitors who find themselves castigated on the web FOR BRINGING THE LAW PROFESSION INTO DISREPUTE . . . hang on a minute tho’ . . . . IS IT POSSIBLE TO BRING THE LAW MORE INTO DISREPUTE THAN THE LAW SOCIETY HAS DONE UP TO NOW? . . . . Click here
“ The Impropriety of Sarah LIAR Adlam @ Fraudsters MCP Law Solicitors”