Page 6     PZ200604 Communications and Service/Filing of Documents Log from 15 April 2008 (Formerly www.arthur-v-layte.co.uk ) E&OE as of 14 December 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 2 February 2011 Complaint to IPCC D1 IPCC email       3 Oct 2012 2 Feb 2011   Complaint re "various Police Officers" to IPCC
2 3 February 2011 Email from IPCC IPCC D1 email       3 Oct 2012     Permission to send to PSD required
3 4 February 2011 Reply to IPCC email D1 IPCC email       3 Oct 2012     Permission to send to IPCC
4 7 February 2011 Letter from IPCC IPCC D1 P1       3 Oct 2012     IPCC have forwarded 2 Feb complaint to PSD (Mr Chudley (PSD) did not record or deal with this 2 Feb 2011 complaint)
5 24 March 2012 Appeal / complaint to IPCC D1 IPCC P1 Y     3 Oct 2012 March 2012  

Complaint to the IPCC regarding the PSD not recording or dealing with 2 Feb 2011 email complaint

Please note highlighted text on page two

6 9 May 2012 IPCC acknowledgement of 24 March appeal against Police not recording a complaint IPCC D1 P1       3 Oct 2012     IPCC acknowledge above appeal but have not done anything about it to date (Oct 2012) nor have the PSD recorded it as a complaint that the PSD have not recorded or dealt with my 2 February 2011 complaint
7 21 December 2012 Email of lettert to Police D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 21 Dec 2012   Force Legal Department asked to confirm various things - No response received within time allowed.
8 8 January 2013 Email to Police D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 8 Jan 2013   Reminder that no response has been received - no response received to reminder.
9 10 January 2013 Email to Police (Strickland) D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 10 Jan 2013   DI Strickland asked to confirm his email stating he had sent a copy of the July 2010 DVD to the Force Legal Department is the truth - no confirmation that it was the truth received.
10 31 January 2013 Email to Police D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 31 Jan 2013   Will the Police stop wasing time dealing with complaints I have not made a start dealing with the ones I have. - no response received.
11 8 February 2013 Email to Police (Strickland) D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 31 Jan 2013   I have not received a response to my 10 January 2013 email to you (above) will you please respond by 12 February 2013 otherwise I will issue a complaint of misconduct against you.
12 17 January 2013 Simms report (annotated) D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 13 Feb 2013   Annotated copy of DI Simms report re DS Pengelly
13 12 February 2013 Appeal Simms report D1 Police email       16 Feb 2013 15 Feb 2013   Appeal of DI Simms 17 January 2013 report
14                        
15                        
16                        
17                        
18                        
19                        
20                        

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 www.arthur-v-layte.co.uk

Because Mr Arthur (and/or the Police?) complained about this web site it has now been re-directed to the unconnected  www.pool-market.net 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 www.arthur-v-layte.co.uk  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 arthur-v-layte.co.uk 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         e-mail
Claimants info@dishonestjudges.org.uk    (but see HERE)
Defendants