PZ2006004 Arthur -v- Layte

Police Involvement?

Were the Police investigating "this case" ? (as 1 & 1 Internet (UK) Ltd allege)

Was DI Strickland unhappy aboutt   www.artur-v-layte.co.uk   ?

Did   arthur-v-layte (co.uk)   contain the evidence against Mr Arthur that DI Strickland states does not exist in his letter of   26 January 2011  ?

Was it Mr Arthur or the Police (or both) that requested 1 & 1 Internet (UK) Ltd shut down all sites on the account ?

 

   ANY REFERENCE ON THIS PAGE TO  www.arthur-v-layte.co.uk  WILL NOT DISPLAY THE ORIGINAL SITE AS IT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN  

   IT HAS HOWEVER BEEN COPIED TO MANY OTHER LOCATIONS AND IT IS ONE OF THE COPY SITES THAT WILL BE DISPLAYED  

   OR CLICK HERE TO VIEW AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL WITH EXTRA INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE  

 

 
Having shut down all J Layte's web sites (including arthur-v-layte (co.uk)) on 5 November 2010  on Mr Arthur's false information 1 & 1 Internet came up with a new (and absurd) reason to shut down the whole account on 6 December 2010. 1&1 Internet also alleged the Police were currently investigating this case "on behalf of Mr Arthur". I did not know if this was true and the Police would not confirm or deny whether was. DI Trott and DI Strickland both told me I would have to apply under the "Freedom of Information Act" to find out if the Police were investigating me and for what. The Force Data Protection Department told me that even if I applied under the Act that would be "information" they would not release so I did not apply. Whether 1&1 Internet were telling the truth when they alleged the Police were "Investigating this case on behalf of Mr Arthur" is thus unknown. What is known that the Police were investigation Mr Arthur at the time because of our allegation "that he had perverted the course of Justice" as made in our 30 July 2010 letter. At the time of our 30 July 2010 letter Mr Arthur had not yet "perverted the course of Justice" by hiding or destroying the evidence against him published on the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site so it obviously was not an allegation that we could have made in our 30 July 2010 letter since we could not predict Mr Arthur would make another attempt to pervert the course of Justice some three months in the future. It was a successful attempt to pervert the course of Justice in that Mr Arthur achieved his aim of hiding or destroying the evidence against him by shutting down the web site on which it was displayed.

Whether it was Mr Arthur or the Police (as 1&1 Internet allege) or both who were responsible for shutting down the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site remains to be seen. What cannot be denied is that the site was shut down between 5 November 2010 and about 24 February 2011 and it was between these dates that the Police were supposed to be investigating Mr Arthur on behalf of the Defendants not investigating First Defendant on behalf of Mr Arthur. The sequence of events is as follows -

1.   30 July 2010  - We ask the Police to investigate Mr Arthur for what we believe is an attempt to pervert the course of Justice by falsifying evidence (

2.   5 November 2010 - 1&1  lock my entire account (including arthur-v-layte (co.uk)) because of Mr Arthur's allegation that the poolmarket.net site is defamatory.

3.   6 December 2010 - 1&1 allege the Police are investigating this case "on behalf of Mr Arthur"

4.   9 and 10 December 2010 - I ask the Police if 1&1 Internet's allegation is true? (see 9 and 10 Dec email below).

5.   No written response is received to 4. above but both DI Strickland and DI Trott state I must apply under the "Freedom of Information Act".

6.   I contact the Police by phone (Data Protection Department?) and am told they will not release this information.

7.   17 December 2010 - Meeting with DI Strickland - DI Strickland states there is no evidence he can see that Mr Arthur perverted the course of Justice.

8.   At the meeting I ask DI Strickland to put in writing what he said at the meeting because his view is challenged. (one can only challenge writing not hearsay)

9.   28 December 2010 - I put in writing my suspicion that it is the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site that Mr Arthur wants shut down and his complaint about the Pool Market site is a red herring

10.   Mid January 2011 - Having still not had anything in writing from DI Strickland I contact the Police and speak to PS Cooper.

11.   26 January 2011 - I receive a letter from (DI?) Strickland. Since it is not on Police paper, not dated, no stamp I email the Police to determine if it is official.

12.   2 February 2011 - I complain to the IPCC - The IPCC forward it to the PSD - The PSD ignore it for over a year - A complaint about the PSD is now being made.

12a  24 February 2011 - 1&1 Internet unlock my account - Mr Arthur complains to 1&1 about arthur-v-layte (co.uk)

14.   6 September 2011 1&1 threaten to lock my account if I do not "take arthur-v-layte (co.uk)  off line". I take the site off line and it remains off line to date.

 

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, <legal@1and1.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr. Layte,

Please be aware that the 
police are currently investigating this case on behalf of the complainant and request that you transfer your domains away from 1&1 Internet Limited, since you are refusing to comply with our requests to remove the defamatory contents, relating to Arthur Dent  from the www.poolmarket.net website.

Please also be aware that if you choose not to pay for the account (although at this point there is no outstanding balance) the account will be passed to our Debt Collection Agency.

If you choose not to further ignore our Debt Collection Agency, then the account will be terminated and your domains will be lost, and released into the public domain.

Kind Regards,

UK Legal Department
1&1 Internet Limited.

To view the "defamatory contents"  relating to Arthur Dent click HERE or HERE if you want to know more about Arthur

 

 

In response to 1&1 Internet's allegation made in their 6 December 2010 email (above) that "the police are currently investigating this case on behalf of the complainant" the following email was sent to  these Police Officers/departments on several dates (e.g. 9 and 10 December 2010)

To  13782 <Christopher.STRICKLAND@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk>,
      david.dolling@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
      John.TROTT@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
      general.enquires@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
      PolAuth@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

 

I would be grateful if you would please confirm to both legal@1and1.co.uk and me at johnlayte@googlemail.com the following.

1.     Whether or not you are investigating this case as 1 & 1 Legal allege and if so for what reason.

2.     Whether or not you intend to suggest I transfer my domains away from 1 & 1 Internet to another hosting company.

3.     If 2. above then whether or not you intend to insist I transfer my domains away from 1 & 1 Internet to another hosting company and if so why?

4.     Whether or not Mr Arthur successfully appealed his conviction for drink driving as he alleges.

5.     Please confirm you have noted 1 & 1 Internet's veiled threat to release my domain names to the public (in case of a future prosecution for theft should they carry out this threat)

Thank you

 

JH Layte


On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, <legal@1and1.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr. Layte,

Please be aware that the 
police are currently investigating this case on behalf of the complainant and request that you transfer your domains away from 1&1 Internet Limited, since you are refusing to comply with our requests to remove the defamatory contents, relating to Arthur Dent  from the www.poolmarket.net website.

 

(Regarding the "defamatory contents, relating to Arthur Dent " see www.arthur-dent.kennall.com N.B.red annotation added to original email in March 2012  JL)

Please also be aware that if you choose not to pay for the account (although at this point there is no outstanding balance) the account will be passed to our Debt Collection Agency.

If you choose not to further ignore our Debt Collection Agency, then the account will be terminated and your domains will be lost, and released into the public domain.

Kind Regards,

UK Legal Department
1&1 Internet Limited.

The Police stated that I must apply under the “Freedom of Information Act” for the information requested in 1 and 4 (no mention of 2,3 and 5). However (regarding 4) a Police officer had already informed me (by phone) that “Mr Arthur had not successfully appealed his conviction for drink driving” (at Tesco Extra car park)  “the conviction stood and any statement by Mr Arthur to the contrary was untrue". As for (1.) I was informed that it would be pointless applying for this information as one of the things that the Police will not reveal is “whether or not they are investigating someone or for what reason”. The Police at Exeter (from memory the Data Protection Department) informed me about a web site that confirms this :-

 

3 Will the police be able to refuse my request?

The Act includes exemptions which allow the police not to release information in some

circumstances. In particular, they do not have to release information to you if this ‘would be

likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime’ in a particular case. This could

include situations where information relates to an ongoing investigation.

 

 

On 23 November 2010 1 & 1 Internet had locked my entire account (about 30 domain names and web sites including the www.poolmarket.net and arthur-v-layte (co.uk) sites) because of Mr Arthur's complaint (It was defamatory for the www.poolmarket.net  site to link to the West Briton site (see 1 & 1 Internet email about this) that reports his conviction for drink driving in Tesco car park because he had successfully appealed the conviction).

By email dated 6 December 2010 (top and below) 1 & 1 Internet (presumably having found out that Mr Arthur had lied to them regarding his appeal being allowed) changed their minds about the reason for locking J Layte's entire account. The new reason for locking the account was "refusing to comply with our requests to remove the defamatory contents, relating to Arthur Dent  from the www.poolmarket.net website"

On 17 December 2010 DI Strickland interviewed J & K Layte regarding their 12 allegations of a criminal nature against Mr Arthur made in their 30 July 2010 letter to him. His view was that Mr Arthur had not been served with our bills of costs because he had returned one of them unopened (We would say that if he had not been served the bill then how could it be that he was able to return it?). DI Strickland was aware that all J Layte's web sites were shut down at the time and he was aware one of them was  arthur-v-layte (co.uk) (DI Strickland had been made aware of this site on several occasions and it is even mentioned at the end of the 30 July 2010 letter).

As can be seen from the 28 December 2010 email below (11 days after the interview) J Layte puts it to 1 & 1 Internet (and the Police) that the real reason Mr Arthur wanted the entire account shut down was nothing to do with www.pool-market.net but was to do with arthur-v-layte (co.uk) because of the evidence against him displayed on the site..

DI Strickland's 26 January 2011 letter was "delivered" at a time when the entire account was still shut down. The letter states there is no evidence against Mr Arthur. (because he knew the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site was not viewable at the time?)..

At the time I had no reason to suspect that it was the Police that wanted arthur-v-layte (co.uk) shut down but then DI Strickland had not yet written the 26 January 2011 letter stating there is no evidence against Mr Arthur.

In hindsight it could well have been the Police (as well as Mr Arthur!) that requested 1 & 1 Internet shut down the account because of the evidence against them (both) on arthur-v-layte (co.uk)

Suspected real reason account 3237238 was locked.

 

john layte johnlayte@googlemail.com     28/12/2010

to:

 legal@1and1.co.uk,
 13782 <Christopher.STRICKLAND@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk>,
 david.dolling@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
 John.TROTT@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
 general.enquires@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk,
 
PolAuth@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

cc:

 complaints@1and1.co.uk,
 johnlayte@hotmail.com,
 kath@kathlayte.freeserve.co.uk,
 tradingstandards@cornwall.gov.uk

 

Dear 1 & 1 Legal (UK) (and Police)

 

On 23 November (evening) you locked my entire account without warning or reason.

 

On 29 November you gave a reason which was nonsense and untrue.

 

On 6 December you gave another ridiculous reason in your  3:57pm email (below). I obviously did not refuse to remove "the defamatory contents" from my www.poolmarket.net  website because this contents (whether defamatory or not) has never been part of that website. It is impossible to remove something that has never been there.

 

There could be another reason you locked my entire account on 23 November 2010 and that is you locked all my other sites (not just www.poolmarket.net). One such site is arthur-v-layte (co.uk) . Why would Mr Arthur want this site locked ?

 

arthur-v-layte (co.uk) (originally www.post2arthur.kennall.com) is a communications log regarding Court case PZ200604 Arthur-v-Layte and was first uploaded in April 2008 for the reasons given in the first letter uploaded (see attached copy16apr2008D1toC.PDF of the uploaded letter).

 

Throughout the 4 years of the Court case and the further 4 years that have elapsed since we were awarded costs against Mr Arthur has made it next to impossible to communicate with him or to serve documents at his service address (or to prove what document was served).

 

The intention of arthur-v-layte (co.uk) is to upload another copy of a communication or document we attempted to post or serve by hand on Mr Arthur thus if the communication was lost by Royal Mail or the service document mysteriously "changed" during transit then Mr Arthur would be able to download a true copy of the original from this site. Mr Arthur, the Court and latterly the Police have been made aware of the existence of this site but I have received no objection to it in the 32 months it has existed. Most (if not all) communications / served documents have also been copied to the Court and were addressed cc arthur-v-layte (co.uk) 

 

You locked my entire account on the evening of 23 November 2010 ostensibly because of "defamatory contents" on www.poolmarket.net but maybe that was not the real reason. Maybe Mr Arthur had complained about arthur-v-layte (co.uk) and www.poolmarket.net was just a "red herring". Mr Arthur obviously does not like this site because it goes some way to disprove his denials of service (and/or denials of what was served if he cannot deny it was served).

 

I think it "very interesting" that your agent in Cebu City (Philippines) looked at arthur-v-layte (co.uk) and downloaded a copy of the same 16 April 2008 letter (see log below) as attached to this email just before locking my account on 23 November 2010. Why ? Mr Arthur had complained about www.poolmarket.net not arthur-v-layte (co.uk) which I am sure your agent did not come across by accident (note "No referring link"). If Mr Arthur did complain about arthur-v-layte (co.uk) then what was his complaint ?

 

It is easy for me to upload copies of arthur-v-layte (co.uk) to other hosts (I have done) but the one hosted by 1 & 1 is more relevant because the date of uploading each "document" is important as it may be required as evidence in Court. A print of the "document" folder is required which will include a date when each file (document) was uploaded but as my account is locked I cannot obtain one. Please supply me with a print of the document folder under arthur-v-layte (co.uk) . (Now that 1 & 1 have unlocked my account I have obtained a print of the “document” folder (with dates) – annotation in red added 22/2/2012 JL)

 

To my mind you are withholding important evidence by locking my account and that may well be a crime.

 

Sincerely

 

JH Layte

 

P.S. If the Police require the web address of one of the copies of arthur-v-layte (co.uk) then please contact me. If 1 & 1 need to look at the original then obviously you can despite my account being locked.

 

I CAN CONFIRM THAT THE POLICE DID NOT CONTACT ME AND REQUEST THE ADDRESS OF ONE OF THE arthur-v-layte (co.uk) COPY SITES

 

PERHAPS THEY DID NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT A SITE THAT CONTAINED THE EVIDENCE AGAINST Mr ARTHUR THAT DI STRICKLAND WAS GOING TO STATE DIDN'T EXIST IN 28 DAYS TIME

There are none so blind as those who do not want to see and it was the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site the Police did not want to see.

 

 


 

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, <legal@1and1.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr. Layte,

Please be aware that the 
police are currently investigating this case on behalf of the complainant and request that you transfer your domains away from 1&1 Internet Limited, since you are refusing to comply with our requests to remove the defamatory contents, relating to Arthur Dent  from the www.poolmarket.net website.

Please also be aware that if you choose not to pay for the account (although at this point there is no outstanding balance) the account will be passed to our Debt Collection Agency.

If you choose not to further ignore our Debt Collection Agency, then the account will be terminated and your domains will be lost, and released into the public domain.

Kind Regards,

UK Legal Department
1&1 Internet Limited.

  

 

VISITOR ANALYSIS

Referrer

No referring link

Host Name

 

IP Address

58.69.235.18 [Label IP Address]

Country

Philippines

Region

Cebu City

City

Cebu

ISP

Philippine Long Distance Telephone

Returning Visits

0

Visit Length

38 seconds

VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS

Browser

Firefox 3.5

Operating System

WinXP

Resolution

Unknown

Javascript

Enabled

Navigation Path

Date

Time

Type

WebPage

23rd November 2010

20:30:27

Page View

No referring link arthur-v-layte (co.uk)

23rd November 2010

20:31:05

Download

16apr2008D1toC.PDF

16apr2008D1toC.PDF       320K Download   View   

 

 

 

I complained to Trading Standards about 1&1 Internet locking my account for no valid reason and following intervention from them they unlocked my account On February 24 2011 (See below). Note that 1&1 also admit that it was indeed the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site that Mr Arthur was complaining about and not the www.poolmarket.net site. I had suspected.

I did not alter the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site but on September 6 2011 (See below)1&1 Internet threatened to shut down my entire account for the second time if I did not agree to put it off-line. I agreed to take arthur-v-layte (co.uk) off line (and it remains off line on my 1&1 account). I have uploaded several "updated" copy sites to other hosts (such as this one).

Note that 1&1 Internet's September 6 2011 email (below) makes it apparent that  Mr Arthur has said that the case was found in his favour which of course is not true. It was found in our (the Defendant's) favour and we were awarded costs against Mr and Mrs Arthur.

So far in this case Mr Arthur has claimed -

1.   He won his original "valuation dispute" Claim - Not true as the shop was sold at the Defendant's valuation (Over twice the Claimant's valuation).

2.   He won the Counterclaim - Not true - He lost the Counterclaim - It was found in the Defendant's favour and not dismissed as he tells everyone.

3.   He won the second "damages" Claim - Not true - He lost the main Claim in November 2005 and the Defendants were awarded costs against him.

4.   His appeal against conviction for drink driving at Tesco car park was allowed - Not true -  It was not allowed.

For the record he also lost his appeal against conviction for assault and he has been convicted of drink driving on two further occasions since the Tesco car park conviction.

To hide, destroy or falsify evidence is to pervert the course of Justice.

Mr Arthur told the Court he had not been served a document (First Defendant's bill of costs) or if he admitted receiving something then that "something" was "something" other than the document served (bill of costs).

Mr Arthur's problem was the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site contradicted his claims to the Court in that it lists what had been served, when it was served, how it was served and what it was. Even if Mr Arthur's claims that a document had been lost in the post were true then the web site allowed him to download another copy.

Mr Arthur wanted to shut down the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site and hide / destroy the evidence against him but he could not complain directly to 1&1 Internet about the site since that would be admitting that he knew about it and would be acknowledging its existence and the fact that he could download another copy of any document he claimed he had not been served at any time.

To get around the problem that he could not complain directly (or more to the point openly) about the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site he openly complained to 1 and 1 Internet about another one of my sites hosted by them (the www.poolmarket.net web site). Mr Arthur claimed poolmarket.net was defamatory in that it included a link to a site that linked to another that linked to a West Briton site that reported that Mr Arthur had been convicted of drink driving at Tesco Extra car park but that he had appealed the conviction. Mr Arthur told 1&1 Internet that his appeal against conviction had been allowed. 1&1 Internet believed him and locked my entire account (not just the poolmarket.net web site but all the 30 others including the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site). In fact Mr Arthur had lied to 1&1 Internet, his appeal against conviction had not been allowed, the consequence of this lie was that the evidence against Mr Arthur contained in the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was hidden and I maintain that to hide or destroy or falsify evidence is to pervert the course of Justice and is a crime.

Was Mr Arthur alone in his "dislike" of the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site? Maybe not.

1. The Court were aware of the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site and the evidence it contained. The evidence contradicts Judge (HHJ) Griggs' statement that "J.Layte did not comply with Judge Wainwright's 10 September 2007 Order in that he did not serve or file his bill of costs in compliance of this Order" (Yes he did and the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site lists when, how and what he served and filed).

2. Mr J Djanogly (Under Secretary of state for Justice) made the same statement as HHJ Griggs in his 30 November 2011 letter so he too would not want a web site to exist that contradicts his statement.

3. The Police. At the time the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was shut down DI Strickland was investigating our allegation made in our 30 July 2010 letter that Mr Arthur had perverted the course of Justice. DI Strickland's 26 January 2011 letter states there is no evidence that Mr Arthur had perverted the course of Justice. On the date DI Strickland wrote the letter the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was shut down so the evidence against Mr Arthur (that DI Strickland states "does not exist" did exist but was hidden. DI Strickland had been told about the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site (before it was shut down) but it would seem did not want to know about evidence that he states "does not exist".

 

 

24 February 2010 Email from 1&1 Internet

 

On 24 February 2011 1&1 Internet unlock my account and arthur-v-layte (co.uk) becomes visible again. The email reveals that Mr Arthur "initially" complained about the Pool Market site but it was really the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) that he didn't like (and wanted to shut down). 1&1 Internet warns that no mention of Mr Arthur must be made and they will lock the account if Mr Arthur complains again. Despite this threat no changes to arthur-v-layte (co.uk) are made. The copy sites that were set up whilst arthur-v-layte (co.uk) are updated however.

 


 

6 September 2010 Email from 1&1 Internet

 

Some six months after 1&1 unlocked my account (and arthur-v-layte (co.uk) had been visible) Mr Arthur complains to 1&1 Internet that the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) is defamatory since it gives the impression that Mr Arthur lost the Claim he made against the Laytes. That is the correct impression since he did lose the Claim. Despite pointing this out 1 &1 Internet lock my account until the arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site is put off line. The arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site is put off line by re-directing it to the Pool Market site but the many copy sites (that would not have existed if Mr Arthur had not tried to shut down the original) remain as they are not hosted by 1&1 Internet.

 

By complaining directly about arthur-v-layte (co.uk) Mr Arthur has admitted he was aware of it.

 

By complaining directly about arthur-v-layte (co.uk) Mr Arthur has admitted he was aware of it. By getting it shut down Mr Arthur was attempting to pervert the course of Justice by hiding evidence against him. As the site is shut down then he has perverted the course of Justice. If 1&1 Internet had permanently locked my account and released all my domains then that would have been destroying the evidence which is again perverting the course of Justice.

 

The Police cannot deny they were informed about the arthur-v-layte.co.uk web site (before it was shut down).

The Police cannot deny they were informed that the arthur-v-layte.co.uk web site contained evidence against Mr Arthur re perverting the course of Justice.

The Police cannot deny they were investigating Mr Arthur re our allegation that he perverted the course of Justice as made in our 30 July 2010 letter.

There is no evidence that the Police looked at arthur-v-layte.co.uk before it was shut down (Police not listed in visitor logs). The Police should look at evidence supplied to them - not ignore it.

The Police cannot deny they were informed that 1&1 Internet had locked my account (about 30 domains and 50 email addresses) because of Mr Arthur's complaint re poolmarket.net.

The Police cannot deny they were aware that the arthur-v-layte.co.uk web site was also locked (not visible) because of Mr Arthur's complaint about another web site on the account.

The Police cannot deny they made no effort whatsoever to facilitate the un-locking of the account (and thus the arthur-v-layte.co.uk web site)

The Police cannot deny that DI Strickland stated at the 17 December 2010 meeting that he could see no evidence that Mr Arthur perverted the course of Justice.

The Police cannot deny that DI Strickland was asked, immediately following the meeting, to put his views in writing.

The Police cannot deny they were informed on 28 December 2010 that I considered Mr Arthur's complaint to 1&1 was to do with arthur-v-layte.co.uk and not poolmarket.net

The Police cannot deny that DI Strickland's 26 January 2011 letter states that "he did not consider there was any evidence that Mr Arthur perverted the course of Justice".

The Police cannot deny that the PSD did their best to ignore my 2 February 2011 complaint.and The Police cannot deny that a year later Mr Chudley (PSD) denied the IPCC had sent him a copy.

The Police cannot deny that 1&1 Internet stated that "The police are currently investigating this case on behalf of the complainant" in their 6 December 2010 email"

 

There is no doubt that the Police were involved in this case (as 1&1 Internet state) but not on behalf of Mr Arthur. The Police were supposed to be investigating this case on behalf of the Defendants (J & K Layte) regarding their allegation made in their 30 July 2010 letter to DI Strickland that Mr Arthur had perverted the course of Justice by providing the Court with false evidence (a tampered with copy of our 7 March 2007 bills of costs) and that he had lied to the Court in his 14 May 2009 Notice which claims the "First time he had received a hard copy of the first Defendant's bill of costs was on 13 May 2009".

 

Subsequent to our 30 July 2010 letter and whilst the Police were supposed to be investigating Mr Arthur for perverting the course of Justice there is no doubt that he repeated the offence by trying to hide or destroy the evidence against him held in the arthur-v-layte.co.uk web site and there is absolutely no doubt that the Police were aware that he was committing this offence and did nothing about it and it must follow that the Police are equally culpable of committing the offence or at least aiding and abetting Mr Arthur to commit the offence.

 

 

 

                         e-mail
Claimants info@dishonestjudges.org.uk    (but see HERE)
Defendants defendants@arthur-v-layte.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

 

.

 

.

.