This post examines the role which the corrupt and deceitful law firm of Pinsent Masons LLP have played in this case, a role which specifically breaches both the civil and criminal law. Part of the evidence which proves Pinsent Masons LLP’s criminal liability cannot yet be posted to this website, as it has not yet been aired at a public court hearing. This evidence will still be used in my attempt to join Pinsent Masons LLP to the existing claim as a tortfeasor.
If anyone thinks that Pinsent Masons LLP is a fine, upstanding law firm, just because it has offices all over Great Britain and in other countries (including Deutschland), they will need to think again. Evidence of their deceit and corruption has already been posted in the form of Tara Hepworth’s deceit in signing every document of a Directions Questionnaire submission with a Statement of Truth in the appropriate manner, except for the Questionnaire itself, where Hepworth just printed the words “Pinsent Masons LLP” in the signature box as the document contained lies.
Now, a senior employee of Pinsent Masons, known as Gary Terence Wayne Coleman, has submitted a blatantly deceitful witness statement to the High Court of Justice Birmingham District Registry, and appended it with a false statement of truth.
Before examining this false witness statement in detail, I will just publish an extract from the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C, which would seem to anyone reading it to be perfectly explicit in the portent it conveys. The relevant section is CPR PD 3C 2.9 (1), which, as you can see from the graphic below, states “A limited civil restraint order – is limited to the particular proceedings in which it is made.”
I will now publish the deceitful witness statement of Gary Coleman, who appears not only to be a bent lawyer, but actually a bent Senior Associate of what is supposed to be a reputable firm of solicitors. I also have evidence of criminal behaviour committed by “Bent Gary”, but, for now, I cannot publish it to the website as it has not been publicly aired. It is almost inevitable that it will be aired at a public court hearing in the first half of 2018, and, at that time, it will be published.
Paragraph 2 is obviously a lie, as Coleman is 100% aware that what he has stated in his witness statement is all pure cobblers, especially the lie that a limited CRO bars the issuance of a claim in the High Court (see above).
There are multiple factual errors in paragraphs 4 to 6, but they are not worth examining in any detail as they don’t affect the portent of the lies. What is significant is that Coleman is engaging in character assassination, and then, in paragraph 7, he admits that the the contentions of his previous paragraphs had no bearing upon my ability to issue the claim anyway. He decided that lie was one too many to tell, for reasons known only to himself.
Paragraph 8 is a blatant and obvious contempt of court. As above, a limited civil restraint order is limited to the particular proceedings in which it is made (CPR PD 3C 2.9 (1)). Coleman obviously knows this, but he still wants to bullshit the Court in order to waste its time. The issue of “subject-matter” is of no relevance, as Coleman is perfectly aware.
I did serve a N266 Notice to Admit Facts on the five applicants to try to get them to admit the deceit prior to a hearing at which judicial time would be wasted, but the Pinsent Masons LLP bent lawyers refused to respond to it. Needless to say, both the N266 Notice and the refusal were exhibited to my witness statement and put before the judge.
It is noted that Coleman doesn’t bother to deny that any of the abuses occurred. He just wants the court to get rid of the action on grounds which he knows are completely spurious. Of course, everything I have stated in my particulars of claim is 100% truthful. All I want is justice, all Coleman wants is to scam a court and get tortfeasors he knows are sadistic and evil off the hook for what they have done. Yes, even mass murderers have a right to be represented at their trial, but there is a difference between representation and deceit.
Coleman’s statement in paragraph 12 belies a total misunderstanding of the issues of res judicata, cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, Henderson v Henderson, and abuse of court process, or, at least, a purported misunderstanding. In truth, Coleman obviously knows he is bullshitting the court. There is no room here to go into a detailed analysis of these issues, which would belong in a theoretical post if I had time to address them at all, but the most obvious argument is that torts which complete in April 2016, if indeed they have completed, cannot have been included in proceedings which were issued seven months earlier.
Paragraph 13 is a sick joke. If Coleman believes that bribing police officers to violently assault an innocent victim, submitting false allegations of tax crime against the same victim to the government, and illegally obtaining private telephone numbers from third parties to repeatedly cause a nuisance to the same victim are “staff members carrying out their day-to-day contracted tasks to the best of their ability”, he should exhibit to his statement the contracts which specify that staff should carry out such tasks.
It is to be noted that he does not deny that any of these events took place.
Paragraph 14 is just silly. Anyone reading this site will know that what these scum have done goes way beyond the threshold needed for criminal liability. As for the argument that “our tortfeasors have committed so much wrongdoing that there will be a long trial, therefore decide the case in our favour”, which the applicants’ counsel even had the barefaced gall to advance at the hearing, I don’t think that quite results in cases being decided justly. Anyway, if these sick idiots don’t want to waste their money, why don’t they just settle the case without the need for litigation?
The application for Part 24 judgment is totally without merit, as there is probative evidence which is not available to the Court now which will be available by the time the case goes to trial. All bent lawyers add a Part 24 to a groundless Part 3 just because they can do so without having to pay an extra appo fee. It is time they were kicked in the nuts for it and penalised with an appropriate order.
The costs bollocks is also totally without merit, as there is an authority from the Gibraltar court which proves that denying a litigant access to the court at first instance would contravene Article 6(1) of the ECHR. As ever, Coleman doesn’t believe a single word he is writing, and just wants to con the Court in order to help his equally corrupt mates. When you consider how sick those scum mates are, you realise that a limit on lying and attempting to deceive courts is desperately needed, without a victim litigant needing to risk a Part 81 action, in the interests of the public but paid for out of the litigant’s own pocket.
As for Paragraph 20…..well…..If Coleman honestly believes that a Limited Civil Restraint Order made in county court proceedings bars the issuance of a claim in the High Court (a belief which can be disproved by reading one line of the relevant CPR Practice Direction) then I submit that his clients have an excellent claim for professional negligence.
If you are looking to instruct solicitors, you now know to avoid Pinsent Masons scum. Unless, of course, you actually want a solicitor to lie on court documents for which you will be responsible, giving you the chance of being locked in a prison cell with burglars, pickpockets, murderers, paedophiles and AIDS-infected male rapists. Given his performance in this case, you might even end up sharing a cell with “Bent Gary.”
More on Coleman to come, especially if I can get his sick employers joined to my claim for damages.