A Victims Story Submission : Colin Peters
I was a small works builder who was tricked into laying out 5 months of my time and my skills and finances on an agreement which my friend/customer Dennis Bottomley, proposed to me and one which he never ever had any intention of honouring.
It was a deliberate con trick, and one which he could never have got away with but for being aided and abetted in his deceptions by professional people and lawyers of all ranks.
At the start of litigation, with the able assistance of a legal executive by the name of Nicholas P Luty, he was able to procure legal aid certificates for himself and his wife on a complete pack of lies.
He was aided and abetted in his deceptions by Paul S Withey, a surveyor cum estate agent, who authored a 7 paged report which was a fabrication throughout.
Based on this false report, a barrister by the name of John Walford drew up a 7 paged Defence and Counterclaim document.
Stemming from the false report, this too was a fabrication and its contents represented Bottomleys ’Pleaded Case’, – this being the case that one would expect to meet at a court hearing.
It took almost 5 years before I was able to get the case before a court and I approached the court prepared and able to defeat the claims that had remained constant for all that time, only to meet another pack of lies which were in conflict with the first set..
In my summing up speech I pointed out these conflicts of evidence to judge Arthur Hutchinson QC who listened to me and then ruled on the brand new story which had virtually been concocted on the steps to the court.!!!
Before giving his judgement it was conceded to him by Andrew Thompson, – another barrister acting for Bottomley, – that in the giving of his evidence, Bottomley had committed perjury.
Judge Arthur Hutchinson simply waived it away and from his outcome driven judgement, it is clear to see that his prime concern was in covering up the wrongdoings of the surveyor and the barrister.
He rejected Witheys evidence with ”regret and no small measure of emarrassment” but felt that he had been trying to give his clients value for money!!!
Is the giving of ’value for money’ the legal and judicial definition of aid and abetting fraud and deception? It would appear so.
£32,000 of public monies were squandered on Bottomley evading a debt of just £6,173 and all of the lies that had gained him his legal cerificates,being either rejected by, or conceded to, the court, means that everyone who received a share of that money was paid from public monies gained by fraud and deception.
For the documentation in proof of my claims, please visit my website at http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com/truth
Trackback from your site.