Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 20:02:06 GMT
I have just watched a Channel 4 program I recorded from the other night –“ Britain’s Lost Waterlands; escape to Swallows and Amazons country” with Dick Strawbridge and some young lady. Enjoyable as it was, pertinent to this thread was the portion right at the end where Dick gets taken around a lightship preserved as a museum and gets to fire up a Gardner single cylinder to power up the lights. It was LV18 if I remember aright, restored and open to the public at Harwich. One has to wonder if the Harwich harbour authority would have seen it appropriate to act as CaRT have done if it fell into arrears. So much could have been made of Planet in its original milieu in the interests of maritime history. The film excerpt was a small one, but worth watching if it is available on some sort of catch up. It's nice when people care and forget about money and control freaky agendas isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jul 16, 2017 20:25:08 GMT
As Ms Nomvetes boss, Deards would have had access to to her personnel record including her home address. He would have also been aware of the legal position with regard to providing that information when requested. It is interesting to note that it is not unknown for C&RT to write to mooring providers asking for personal information related to moorers. When they do so they point out that the mooring provider has a legal duty to provide such information as a crime may have been committed. Peculiar that the Law Society is mentioned. Ms Nomvetes new employers address (which I gave to Tony) was actually provided by the Law Society. I find your bit about CRT demanding info interest, my mind is saying breach of the DPA without a court order. CRT record should already have all the contact info needed for any purpose. Interesting the Law Society still has a CRT email address for her. Could she be on secondment? Here is an extract - With regard to Nomvete being on secondment, I have checked into this and this is not the case. It's more down to the way search engines index sites which can lag behind changes made.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 16, 2017 21:13:16 GMT
So... err... what's happening? What are the next steps? Has Planet's 'new owner' tarted it up yet? "Planet" still resides in the south eastern corner of Sharpness Dock with, if any of their figures and paperwork are to be believed, C&RT paying the Sharpness port operators around £270 per week for it to do so. We're at present still waiting on the Liverpool Magistrates Court to extract it's judicial finger and issue the Summonses, all the necessary prosecution paperwork - technically referred to by the Court as an "Information" - having been laid before a District Judge some while ago. The "new owner", who, of course still awaits documentary evidence/proof of transfer of good title to the ship, seems to be distinctly uninterested in their recently acquired bargain !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 27, 2017 22:17:07 GMT
We got this rather comical, but nonetheless very useful, missive from Shoosmiths at a minute or so to 6 o'clock this evening. First promised by C&RT's Head of Illegal, Tom Deards, to be sent in 'the next few days' on 29 June 2017, . . . it was well worth the wait:-
Dear Mr Dunkley
I refer to your emails below and attached sent to the Trust. As you are aware, Thami Nomvete is no longer employed by the Trust. In so far as you have prepared any witness summons on the basis of allegations of theft and/or fraud, or any other form of summons requiring Thami or any other person to attend at Court (presumably to be subjected to oral examination under oath although this is not clear from your email), you will need to arrange personal service of these witness summons on the named individuals. The Trust is not in a position to disclose confidential information regarding the residential address of either current or former employees to third parties. You shall have to make your own enquiries in that regard.
It remains our client’s position that any action taken by Thami in relation to the Light vessel known as Planet, Liverpool, was undertaken in her capacity as an employee of Canal & River Trust, and therefore that she has no personal liability in relation to any alleged claim that may be made by Mr Roberts for theft and/or fraud.
Our client is also aware that you are also seeking to serve a similar summons on Chantelle Seaborn, who remains an employee of Canal & River Trust. Our client is also unable to disclose confidential information regarding her residential address as a current employee and once again would make it clear that any action taken by Chantelle in relation to the Light vessel known as Planet, Liverpool, was undertaken in her capacity as an employee of Canal & River Trust, and therefore that she has no personal liability in relation to any alleged claim that may be made by Mr Roberts for theft and/or fraud.
Our client is further aware that you have sent an email dated 22 June 2017 to Andrew Goudie, Canal & River Trust, Harbour Master, who remains an employee of Canal & River Trust. Our client is also unable to disclose confidential information regarding his residential address as a current employee and once again would make it clear that any action taken by Andrew in relation to the Light vessel known as Planet, Liverpool, was undertaken in his capacity as an employee of Canal & River Trust, and therefore that he has no personal liability in relation to any alleged claim that may be made by Mr Roberts for theft and/or fraud.
Finally, your email of 22 June 2017 was also sent to Brian Clark of CBS (being contractors who were used by the Trust to assist with the removal of the vessel). The Trust did not instruct CBS to assist with the removal of the vessel on the basis of the existence of any alleged “fictitious High Court warrant” as referred to in your email of 22 June 2017 and no one from Canal & River Trust impersonated an officer of the Court at any time or encouraged or induced any other person to do so. The removal of the vessel from Canal & River Trust’s land and waters was carried out in accordance with the terms of the Berthing Agreement which Mr Roberts had entered into with the Trust.
The reference to a High Court warrant being enforced in the report by Braemar Technical Services Limited was an error, which was later corrected and a revised and accurate report was issued (copy attached). Unfortunately, upon the Trust sending the exhibits to us to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017, the wrong version of the Braemar report was sent. Our client confirms that both CBS, and the security agents instructed by them, were aware of the basis of their instruction and that this was not in order to enforce a High Court warrant, as no warrant was issued nor was one required in the circumstances.
In so far as Mr Roberts intends to take any criminal or civil action as a result of the aforementioned vessel being removed from Canal & River Trust’s waters and property, such action should properly be brought against Canal & River Trust (and will be vigorously defended). The Trust’s Legal Team advised Chantelle, Andrew and others to achieve the Trust’s desired removal of the vessel from the Dock in accordance with the terms of the Berthing Agreement. Thami took advice on the Trust’s legal powers from us and was acting under Tom Deard’s supervision as Head of Legal at all times and, as you know, has since left the Trust. Therefore, if Mr Roberts is insisting on service upon a named individual from the Trust, Mr Deards is the most appropriate person rather than any of the other 3 Trust employees or ex-employees referred to above; although our client disputes that any theft or fraud has taken place and will deny any such charges and vigorously defend any such claim.
Furthermore, Brian Clark of CBS acted in accordance with instructions received from Canal & River Trust as a contractor in assisting in the removal of the vessel from the Trust’s property and waterways in accordance with clause 10.1.2 of the terms and conditions of the Berthing Agreement; as such, he has no personal liability in relation to any alleged claim that may be made by Mr Roberts for theft and/or fraud in relation to the removal and subsequent sale by the Trust of the vessel to a third party.
Yours sincerely
Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate SHOOSMITHS LLP
. . . . . It's jam-packed with inaccuracies and misconceptions from start to finish, but there is one particular paragraph that enlivens the attention ! The title/cover page of the Braemar Technical Services Survey Report has been altered. When filed at the High Court as Exhibit in last year's Injunction hearing, the last paragraph on the title page read - "At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 agents acting for Canal & River Trust enforced a High Court Warrant and seized the vessel . . . ".
This has been altered to do away with any mention of seizure pursuant to High Court warrant, and now it reads - "At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 Canal & River Trust enforced their rights under the berthing agreement and instructed agents to remove the vessel . .".
I'll post up the reply some time tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jul 27, 2017 23:32:18 GMT
So there will be a record of the unaltered document at court I would assume? If it was entered as proof
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 27, 2017 23:46:04 GMT
"to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017" Perhaps they also have in mind to ask Zoe to say something different when she makes her witness statement in December 2017!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 28, 2017 1:08:22 GMT
"to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017" Perhaps they also have in mind to ask Zoe to say something different when she makes her witness statement in December 2017! I wouldn't really care to second guess what they might come up with next, but time travel would be a convenient way out for them. Despite having taken around 4 weeks to accomplish this somewhat clumsy and unconvincing bit of document 'doctoring', C&RT's lawyers have apparently overlooked the other evidence as to the truth about the deceptions, and criminal offences, behind the events of 19 September last in Liverpool. Exhibited as Injunction hearing evidence along with the BTS Ltd Survey Report, C&RT also included an itemized 'Schedule of Costs' listing fees totaling £4500.00 for the "Bailffs" who conducted what was then being described in the same document as 'seizure' of the ship. We also have a copy of the 24 October 2016 CBS Invoice (No. CRT 1053 against CRT Order No. 3500150666) in which they billed C&RT for these very same "Bailiffs" in addition to a £5000.00 fee for what was somewhat oddly described on the Invoice as "Seizure of Section 8 boat Planet Light".
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 28, 2017 9:26:54 GMT
So there will be a record of the unaltered document at court I would assume? If it was entered as proof I don't think the Courts keep stuff like that on record, Peter, but with yesterday's e-mail and the 'doctored' Report now available for comparison with the original there's no way that C&RT can try to retrieve the situation without making themselves appear even more corrupt and dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jul 28, 2017 13:20:39 GMT
I am really hoping that they get caught out by the lies that they are telling, it would be nice if the police were forced to make some high profile arrests
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jul 28, 2017 13:36:37 GMT
I wonder if the new owner really exists or is a CaRT shill ?
Who would invest in such a money black hole while its ownership is being disputed ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 28, 2017 14:08:39 GMT
I wonder if the new owner really exists or is a CaRT shill ? Who would invest in such a money black hole while its ownership is being disputed ? Either a participant in some dubious C&RT scheme to save face by ultimately bringing the ship back to Liverpool under their control and/or, ostensibly, 'owned' by the Trust, or someone stupid/dishonest enough to think that doing a deal for a vessel like "Planet" for £12,500 could possibly be all above board, . . . stolen goods and property never fetches anywhere near it's true market value !
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 28, 2017 17:10:35 GMT
According to Shoosmiths then, the Belsen guards were innocent, only acting as Adolph's employees, under orders! Those lads chose the wrong defence lawyers! Indeed, Shylock missed a trick too, if he had had the contract drawn up by shoosmiths, there would have been a couple of gallons of blood specified.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jul 28, 2017 17:11:54 GMT
"to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017" Perhaps they also have in mind to ask Zoe to say something different when she makes her witness statement in December 2017! I wouldn't really care to second guess what they might come up with next, but time travel would be a convenient way out for them. Despite having taken around 4 weeks to accomplish this somewhat clumsy and unconvincing bit of document 'doctoring', C&RT's lawyers have apparently overlooked the other evidence as to the truth about the deceptions, and criminal offences, behind the events of 19 September last in Liverpool. Exhibited as Injunction hearing evidence along with the BTS Ltd Survey Report, C&RT also included an itemized 'Schedule of Costs' listing fees totaling £4500.00 for the "Bailffs" who conducted what was then being described in the same document as 'seizure' of the ship. We also have a copy of the 24 October 2016 CBS Invoice (No. CRT 1053 against CRT Order No. 3500150666) in which they billed C&RT for these very same "Bailiffs" in addition to a £5000.00 fee for what was somewhat oddly described on the Invoice as "Seizure of Section 8 boat Planet Light". Well that was interesting. Firstly despite what the solicitors say about these individuals working for CRT, and therefore it is CRT that should be pursued is nonsense. You are alleging criminal offences of theft and fraud, and it is individuals who commit these, not the organisation. Next is the attempt to doctor the evidence. I would see if solicitors will volunteer who precisely was involved in the discussions and redrafting of the document. This may then give you a few names to add to any indictments for the offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is often said that the cover up is worse than the original crime. You should have a named contact with the police at Liverpool who are investigating your complaint against police for failing to properly investigate your original allegations. You should now forward this information and ask them to investigate this as a parallel matter. Even if the police want to maintain that the original matter is civil which it is not, they simply cannot claim that this new allegation, which is that having being made aware of the instigation of criminal proceedings, material documentary evidence is being fabricated. Again if the police fail or refuse to properly investigate this matter then make a formal complaint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 19:10:27 GMT
I always get their home adresses from 192.com, which also gives You access to the electoral role. You just need to know the area they live, which is usually simple enough to find elsewhere. Chantelle seaborn is an easy one to find, she's all over Google.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 28, 2017 22:23:07 GMT
I always get their home adresses from 192.com, which also gives You access to the electoral role. You just need to know the area they live, which is usually simple enough to find elsewhere. Chantelle seaborn is an easy one to find, she's all over Google. Thanks, Steve, but we don't need home addresses for service of Court papers. All the prosecution paperwork that was laid before the Court gave the work addresses for service for the four people being prosecuted - Seaborn at C&RT's Wigan Office, Goudie at C&RT's Albert Dock address, Nomvete at C&RT's Milton Keynes Office, and Clark at the CBS (Bithell Boats) Chester address. The question of home addresses was only introduced into this by Shoosmiths in yesterdays e-mail. Nomvete, of course, no longer works for C&RT, but we have got her new work address - now, apparently, a 'legal adviser' at Middlesex University, . . . God help them ! I might be allowing my imagination a little too much free rein, but I can't help wondering if the apparent ease with which C&RT/Shoosmiths were able to lie and bullshit their way out of the hole they were in over the criminal misuse of Section 8 in distraint in Leigh Ravenscroft's Claim has prompted and encouraged them to try something similar over their fictitious Warrant and bogus Bailiffs in Liverpool ?
|
|