To whom it may concern:
Back in January 2005, when I first appealed against the order of D J Brookes, His Honour Judge Barclay listed my appeal as "a rehearing sitting with assessors" which was his first inclination back in September 2004 - see top of page 356 of the bundle. This resulted in FDC Law taking the action I now refer to as "The Curwen Ruse". In simple terms Ms. Pitman made a clandestine visit to Bristol County Court and sought a "private meeting" with a judge. She took with her a print-out of pages from my web site www.legalbullies.co.uk The first I knew about it (and I think H H J Barclay only learned that morning) was when the Judge produced the document in Court. He was clearly angry with FDC Law (not with me) but the ruse was nonetheless successful and the case was transferred to Birmingham - building further costs, keeping FDC Law's misconduct secret and denying me any consistency of Judge.
Mr. Curwen pretended (in Court) that he knew nothing about this, but later, when I examined the server logs, it was obvious that the only person that had visited ALL of the pages they produced in Court (H H J Barclay let me see them) used an IP address registered to Unity Street Chambers - i.e. the home of Mr. Curwen. It does not take a genius to work out that Mr. Curwen and Mr. Long share the same "scruples" (or lack thereof). One can perhaps surmise that both were carefully chosen by FDC Law for their "attributes".
To prevent a repeat of the "Curwen Ruse" I hereby give notice as follows:-
1. I have created this page - http://www.legalbullies.co.uk/setaside.htm which deals with CPR 3.1(7)
2. I intend to publish pages 11 through 15 of the draft judgement of D J James which deals with this point of law
3. I have quoted D J James (paragraph 43) in an open complaint to the ALCD about Mr. Long
Yours Faithfully
Spenser M. Poultney
Endersley, Welton Road, Radstock, BA3 3UD - date as email timestamp
PS - H H J Barclay said that the "bundle" from my web site would remain with the court file. I suspect it has since disappeared. None of the material was defamatory (at least in any legally enforcable sense) and it remains in the public domian to this day.