FREEZING ORDER HHJ DENYER QC 24/06/15

Transcription

1 COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL BS etc FREEZING ORDER HHJ DENYER QC 24/06/15 1. Maurice Kirk was made aware that Jeffrey Matthews had 91,000 held by Cardiff City Council as a result of a compulsory purchase of his former home that had been bought under RTB. 2. Mr Matthews was in dispute with the council regarding this and naively thought that he was entitled to the return of his property and for that reason had not claimed the money. 3. Mr Kirk applied for a Freezing Order in respect of this amount for some 24,000 to cover the money owed to him and costs at the County Court in Bristol as Cardiff could not be trusted. 4. The court staff insisted that he issue a Claim Form at their court and pay the claim fee of 700 before they would issue a 50 Notice of Application for the Freezing Order. 5. They in effect blackmailed Mr Kirk and ignored the rules that you can apply for a Freezing Order by giving an undertaking to issue a Claim later and Mr Kirk had indicated that he intended to issue the Claim at the Money Claims Centre which was the only court centre that had the power to actually issue the main claim. 6. After having done this Mr Kirk appeared before HHJ Denyer QC, who was extremely polite and sympathetic and he granted the Interim Freezing Order with a return date of 10/07/ Mr Kirk had also stated what his assets were and exhibited to his affidavit the land registry entry for property which clearly showed that a 1000 charge had been registered against the property, with no mortgage, by a firm of Cardiff solicitors and Mr Kirk made no attempt to hide this incidental fact. 8. In his judgment, he stated that he was satisfied that Mr Kirk had made out a prima facie case and that there was a real risk that Mr Matthews might dissipate his assets unless a Freezing Order was made accordingly. All knew Mr Matthews had been on benefit and taken Mr Kirk s money as well. DISCHARGE OF FREEZING ORDER HHJ DENYER QC 10/07/15 9. When Maurice Kirk appeared again at the County Ct. at Bristol on the morning of 10/07/15, a barrister from Queen s Square Chambers called Mr Travis appeared for Mr Matthews and Mr Matthews was also present. 10. Travers just thrust a Skeleton Argument and Witness Statement from Mr Matthews into Mr Kirk s hands, saying, That s for you. As Caspar Kirk described as the classic ambush tactic. Matthews stated in his Witness Statement that he had collected the monies but made no mention of how he had come into possession of the almost 10,000 worth of cheques from the car dealer. 11. He also falsely stated that Mr Kirk had told him to collect the rents on his behalf as he was subject to a Proceeds of Crime Order and wanted to avoid payment and felt that this justified him in hanging on to the money. Mr Kirk has no knowledge of such an order or idea as to Matthews thinking unless it originates from the 2010 trading in machine guns trial acquittal when this was one of the bizarre listed indictments applied for by the South Wales Police. 1

2 12. He also stated he had a valid counterclaim for his expenses but failed to itemise them or give any proper details. 13. Finally the barrister stated that Mr Kirk had previously misled the court when applying for the Freezing Order on 24/06/15 as he had failed to inform the court about the charge on a property. Later Mr Travis admitted it was assumed to be in excess of 20,000 proving, again, he had not read the claim and it was he who had deliberately misled court to obtain his inflated costs. 14. HHJ Denyer informed Mr Kirk that his application was therefore misleading as he had failed to disclose the charge against his property for a solicitor, a member of his legal profession. 15. The judge quickly indicated that Mr Kirk would not pay any damages that had arisen as a result of the imposition of the Freezing Order. 16. He also stated that in his view, there was no cogent evidence that Mr Matthews would dissipate his assets and as a result he was discharging the Freezing Order despite the benefit fraud, having just experienced a court eviction and had refused to identify where Mr Kirk s money was hidden. The fact that he was being investigated for benefit fraud and evicted was immaterial. 17. He also ordered Mr Kirk to pay Mr Matthews s costs that he assessed in the sum of 1,000 to cover Travis s appearance on behalf of Matthews despite his not even having read his own brief. 18. He also ordered that Particulars of Claim should be served by 24/07/15. RETURN OF FEES AND CANCELLATION OF CLAIM 19. Mr Kirk refused and notified the court that his claim form fee should be returned as the court had no jurisdiction to issue it as the Money Claims Centre could only issue it. 20. HHJ Denyer QC then purported to order that the claim should proceed as a Pt. 8 Claim in place of a Pt. 7 claim and Mr Kirk was directed to file a Pt. 8 Claim form. He again refused. 21. This was in spite of the fact that there would have arisen factual issues in the case. In fact, HHJ Denyer QC was simply trying to get the court staff off the hook by making it a Pt. 8 Claim, which could be issued by the County Ct. at Bristol. The simple fact in UK law courts was for as little was to be read as possible for a predetermined decision so neither judge nor anyone in Queen Square Chambers, Bristol, had read Mr Kirk s submissions. 22. It should be noted this Bristol firm had already acted in Mr Kirk s numerous criminal trials, appeals and applications directly to assist their civil court client, the welsh Chief Constable. 23. Queen Square Chambers had been instructed by police in the Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police 23 year running damages claim and had helped orchestrate Mr Matthews to be court ordered as Maurice Kirk s Mackenzie Friend with privileged access to custody suites and prison. 24. Mr Kirk s numerous stayed and part heard claims for countless malicious prosecutions, false imprisonments and general harassment Mr Matthews had often attended for the police to supply them with tape recordings unbeknown to their victim incarcerated knowing that they were invariably dropped on the day of each trial. 25. Mr Kirk then sent an unsealed copy of the Pt. 8 Claim form to Mr Matthews as a result. However, the court then reneged on this and refunded Mr Kirk s complete claim fee and informed him to issue his claim at the County Ct. Money Claims Centre after all, which is what he wanted to do in the first place. This tactic was deliberately to frustrate a litigant in person, not 2

3 in the game and to delay due process to affect the required funding needed for his ongoing police cases. BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 19/11/ Mr Kirk issued an Appellant s Notice regarding the discharge of the Freezing Order and once again there was a dispute with the court counter staff regarding its issue. 27. The court counter staff claimed that it had to be issued in London, although the PD provided that an appeal should be made in the District Registry for the area where the matter had arisen, in this case the County Court at Bristol. Mr Kirk is of the view the court staff s conduct, over the six month period was deliberate and with malice afore thought once tipped off from Cardiff. 28. They also claimed that there was no judge with sufficient seniority to hear the application for permission to appeal as HHJ Denyer QC was the senior judge at the court and there was no one above him. 29. They tried to refund Mr Kirk s fee but he refused to accept. After some time they eventually listed his application for permission to appeal before Mr. Justice Newey on 19/11/ As Bristol Civil Justice Centre is also a District Registry, it has visiting High Ct. judges on circuit come to hear appeals and claims in the High Ct., so their initial excuses that there was no judge available to hear the application was knowingly false. 31. Mr Travers and Mr Matthews again turned up and again a Skeleton Argument was handed to Mr Kirk just as the case was due to start. 32. Mr Kirk argued that to discharge the Injunction on the basis of a small charge that had since been paid was unreasonable and also that he had fully declared it by exhibiting the land registry entry from the very beginning even though it was quite irrelevant in such a particular case. 33. Mr. Justice Newey held that he wasn t interested in any of that which was irrelevant and as there was no evidence, in his view, that Matthews was going to dissipate his assets he would dismiss the appeal. 34. He also ordered Maurice Kirk to pay 1,800, taxed down from 2,100 for Matthews s costs of the short hearing for instructing Travis despite having lied over the declaration issue. COUNTY COURT AT CARDIFF INTERIM THIRD PARTY ORDER BY DJ PHILLIPS 25/11/ Mr Kirk issued his new claim in the County Court Money Claims Centre. The Claim Form was served and Mr Matthews sent in a Response Pack and Acknowledgment of Service in Sept However, he failed to file and serve a Defence within 14 days of the Acknowledgment of Service, in fact, not at all. 37. As a result, Mr Kirk applied for judgment by Default that was granted and issued for the claim. 3

4 38. Mr Kirk then issued a Third Party Debt Order at the County Ct. at Cardiff in respect of the full amount of the judgment against Cardiff City Council and the 91,000 held on account for Mr Matthews. 39. DJ Phillips made an interim Third Party Order returnable on 09/12/15 against Cardiff City Council. ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING OF THIRD PARTY ORDER BY DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES 09/12/ Mr Matthews turned up with a different counsel but still from Queens Square Chambers and served a further Witness Statement. 41. He claimed that Mr Kirk had authorised the cheques by phone from Swansea Prison and that he had a counter claim for expenses that equalled Maurice s full claim. 42. He also claimed that he knew nothing about Mr Kirk s Money Claim Centre claim. 43. Mr Matthews denied causing a 28 th Sept 15 dated acknowledgment of service form having been sent to Mr Kirk and denied having any knowledge, what so ever, of the claim until it had been mentioned in the Bristol court. 44. Mr Kirk had noticed what he guessed to be was copy of his now court sealed Claim, the one having that had caused him to receive the notification from Saltford court of an acknowledgement of service. This copy of the Claim was tucked under the bundle on the defending barrister s table, an old trick, held it back deciding which way while deciding which way the wind was blowing. 45. Mr Kirk delayed for as long as possible to see if either barrister or Matthews would break before pointing at it as the judge appeared to have need for sight of a copy. The transcript will further confirm other deceit and nefarious conduct not mentioned in this brief account of events, for fear of any further possible misrepresentation, as his complaint is for the relevant authorities in both England and Wales. 46. The DJ was very angry with this as he considered that the court had been misled and directed that Mr Matthews file a further Witness Statement by 15/12/15 and that Mr Kirk to file a reply Witness Statement by 21/12/ He ordered that the application to be adjourned for hearing by him on 06/01/16. DISMISSAL OF THIRD PARTY ORDER BY DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES 06/01/ Mr Matthews again turned up with his new counsel and tried to get the whole claim struck out on the basis that there was already a claim on going in Bristol which was clearly false. 49. Mr Matthews s counsel argued that Matthews had a counter claim and that he should be allowed to defend the claim but no data, what so ever, to support any part of a defence. 50. The DJ felt that there were arguments in relation to breach of contract and quantum meruit without need for a defence and set aside the default judgment. 4

5 51. He ordered that Mr Matthews file a Defence to the Particulars of Claim by 23/01/16 but made no order as to any party s costs or for the police to be called due to the perjury and fraudulent theft. 52. Queen Square barristers were only too well aware that they were again in the employ of the South Wales Police, reliant on police and Dr Tegwyn Williams MAPPA 3/ fabrication, for all to benefit by having kept Mr Kirk in Swansea prison an extra eight months, from August 2014 to March 2015, without the need for another public hearing that would of seen the documentary parole board evidence that no doctor was prepared to sit on their discharge panel as new HMP medical evidence, by way of a specific brain scan, further proved CPS, senior police management and Dr Tegwyn Williams as blatant liars yet again. 53. Mr Kirk immediately Queen s Square Chambers with the view of settling out of court as it was plainly obvious a repeat of his original Bristol solicitors 90s prepared police claims, for 21 st of this month, were designed to bleed an idiot to trust a lawyer in the first place when the current political environment back then, as it is, now ultimately determines the verdict in any UK court. 54. Queens Square Chambers were now also on the gravy train and therefore refused to negotiate exactly as Dolmans, solicitors, had done ever since 1993 in the ongoing police damages claims. 55. Mr Kirk was told that Mr Matthews had paid counsel s fees of 450 for the hearing in advance and this supports the fact, even referred to by the district judge, that Mr Matthews was now open to suing Queens Square Chambers for negligence actually admitted to in two courts. 10 th January 2016 Copy to secretary to His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC 5