Page 5     PZ200604 Communications and Service/Filing of Documents Log from 15 April 2008 (Formerly ) E&OE as of 17 February 2013

Go to Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about

        From January 2012 onwards communications to / from the Court / MOJ / Police / etc will be uploaded in addition to communications to / from Mr & Mrs Arthur      

  Document date

Document . PDF

From To By PoP A X Uploaded e-mailed R Comments
1 8 March 2010 8 March 2010 to Exeter Court D1 EC P1 YES n   8 March 2010 8 March 2010   Posted 9 March 2010
2   cc Arthurs D1 C P1 YES n                       -- " --
3   cc Court of Appeal D1 C of A P1 YES n                       -- " --
4   cc Julia Goldsworthy D1 MP P1 YES y                       -- " --
5 30 July 2010 D.I Strickland (Truro Police) D P RD Y y S 30 July 2010     12 Complaints against Mr Arthur with a request the Police look into one of them. Unsatisfactory answer received 25 January 2011 (16 below)
6              CC Court Manager Exeter D P RD Y n S        
7                " Attorney General D P P1 Y y         Returned
8                " M Malvaney (Office Judicial Complaint) D P RD Y n S       As can be seen a copy of Mr Mulvaney's 1 July 2010 email is enclosed with the 30 July 2010 letter to D.I.Strickland
9                " DJ & A Arthur D P RD Y n S       (also see 14 & 15  below)
10                " D.S. Pengelly (Truro Police) D P P1 Y n          
11                " George Eustice (MP) D P P1 Y y         Meeting Camborne
12                " Sarah Newton (MP) D P P1 Y y         Meeting Truro
13                " The Editor West Briton D P P1 Y n          
14                " DJ & A Arthur D P RD Y n S        
15                " Attachments to above 3 August 2010 letter D P RD Y n S       ( DI Strickland letter)
16 25 January 2011 (?) Mr C Strickland's reply to (5) above P C1 P1   y   14 Jan 2012     Reply to our 30 July 2010 letter. Not dated and on blank paper - posted with no stamp. Mr Strickland refuses to confirm this is the Police opinion either in writing or verbally.
17 2 November 2011 Email complaint to Police and others D V (60) E   n   7 March 2012 2 Nov 2011   Will the Police please investigate Mr Arthur and Court staff - Mrs Deery, Mr Clarke and Mr Fairchild re perverting  the course of Justice
18 22 November 2011 Email complaint to Police and others (attached letter to Judge Arnold) D1 V(60) E   n   Yet to be uploaded 22 Nov 2011   As above + will MOJ / OJC / Police please  investigate DJ Arnold's 16 June 2009 Order which would not have been made if he had been supplied with correct and truthful evidence by the Court staff above.
19 12 December 2011 Phone complaint to Police (468 12/12/2011) D1 P Phone   y   recorded phone call     The Police have not replied to our 2 and 22 November 2011 emails (and neither has the MOJ, OJC) that request  Mr Arthur and Court staff be investigated for perverting the course of Justice.
20 19 January 2012 Police reply (PS Pollock) to complaint 468 P D1 P1   y   29 Jan 2012     Misdated letter purporting to have investigated complaint 468 12/12/1011 that does not even mention Mrs Deery, Mr Clarke and Mr Fairchild.

From / To  D = Defendants D1 = JL (Defendant 1)  D2 = KL Defendant 2 C= Claimants  C1= D Arthur  C2= A Arthur  TC=Truro Court EC = Exeter Court P=Police  V=Various V(n)= n Various

By             (Service method)    P1 or P1 =  First class post  RD1 = Recorded Delivery first class post    H or H = Hand delivery  F= Fax E=email

PoP           (Proof of Posting?)  Y = certificate of posting     RD =  "Signed for" certificate or PO receipt

A               (Acknowledged ?)   n = no   y = yes    R  = Refused RD1    Y  = yes  (RD cert of delivery uploaded)

X               (Explanation)             S = who signed for the RD item     R = returned refused item      L = item inexplicably lost by Royal Mail

R               (Email received ?)     n = no   y = yes   DF = Delivery Failed e-mail from server


  Notes regarding this communications log web site (Formally

Because Mr Arthur (and/or the Police?) complained about this web site it has now been re-directed to the unconnected site (on 1 & 1 Internet's and Mr Arthur's approval)

Click on the photos of Mr Arthur's notices (which he confirmed may be uploaded) to reveal why the public should not be deceived (Note that Mr Arthur obviously was deceived by his own notices).


It was only necessary to set up the  web site (in April 2008) because Mr Arthur invariably denied that he had been served process documents. If served by first class post he would simply deny he had received them. If served by recorded delivery he would either refuse to accept them or if he actually signed for them he would claim the envelope contained something other than what was posted. If delivered by hand he would usually post them back and claim they had not been served. Since setting up this communications log web site most documents were not only posted first class but also posted recorded delivery (or hand delivered) and also uploaded to the web site (so that another copy could be downloaded if the posted copy became lost) This approach meant that every document was effectively served three times by different methods.


Since setting up the site Mr Arthur seems to have discovered a new method of avoiding service of documents posted by recorded delivery. Previously he would refuse to accept recorded delivery (meaning the Royal Mail returns them a couple of weeks later). Since setting up the site several documents served by recorded delivery mysteriously were lost by Royal Mail. As can be seen between 23 April 2008 and 29 July 2008 5 out of the 6 documents posted by recorded delivery were apparently "lost" by Royal Mail (Click on L on page 1 and 2 of this site to see which ones). The only one that was signed for (and not lost or returned) was the 14 May 2008 copy of Mr Layte's bill of costs (Item 17 page 1). The Royal Mail were consulted and their opinion is that it is inconceivable that 5 out of 6 recorded delivery items posted to the same address could become lost and suggested the Police should investigate.  The Police refuse to investigate and claim it is a matter for the Royal Mail to look into.


Mr Arthur refused to acknowledge the existence of the web site but obviously knew about it and didn't like it because, some three years after it was first uploaded, he complained to 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd (who host the site) that it was defamatory because it gives the impression that he had lost the Arthur-v-Layte Court case whereas he told them that it had not yet been decided. and that it had not been found in the Defendants' favour. For the record the final trial of the Arthur's final Claim was held in November 2005 and was decided in the Defendants' favour. Mr Arthur's appeal was dismissed.


The legal department of 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd are a gullible lot. As can be seen from their email of 5 November 2010 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd believed Mr Arthur when he told them ( nearly a year earlier - in his 28 October 2010 Letter) that  he had won his appeal against conviction for drink driving in Tesco car park. No he hadn't and 1 & 1 Internet should learn that hardly anything Mr Arthur tells people is the truth. The same goes for the Police and the Court.


Go to Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about

























































Claimants    (but see HERE)

web stats