- The Claimants have not served their 21 June 2005 Notice of Hearing, having left contacting the Defendant until 11 July 2005.
- The Claimants were late in serving their Order of 10 May 2005 on the Defendant, to the extent that I had to obtain that Order direct from the Court.
- The Claimants are abusing provisions for service by serving documents late, and using violence to do so.
- I am not qualified to negotiate with the Court and the Claimants, all of whom are very reluctant to reply to my letters at all.
- I am not able to determine the documents I should have from the Claimants.
- I find the Claimants incessant use of violence to serve documents, intimidatory, offensive, and it is an entirely dishonest abuse of resources. The Claimants could allow the Court to serve documents on me by posting.
- The Claimants serve documents by pushing an envelope through my letterbox. I caution the Claimants against attempting service by placement under any door.
- The Claimants could, if they wanted, try to resolve any disputes with me by writing to me, and they could give me proper notice of their litigation. The Claimants have decided to use violent document service in place of giving me a chance to avoid more rounds of their endless litigation.
- The Claimants wrote to me on 19 July 2005 stating it is somehow possible to find a Community Legal Service “solicitor who will be able to offer” me “advice and representation.” If this statement is correct, the Claimants must be able to identify a person who is able and willing to fulfil that role. I have asked the Court to appoint the solicitors the Court says I need, subject to the availability of funding. I am still waiting for the Court to determine my Applications of 28 February 2005. If the Claimants, despite all the resources available to them, cannot identify a solicitor who is able to offer me advice and representation, then Mills and Partners have lied and this entire claim should be dismissed.
Page 4 of 8
- A copy of the Claimants 19 July 2005 letter to me is attached to this application as its Exhibit.
- I place no restriction on the location of the solicitor the Claimants nominate.
- Should the Claimants notify me of a solicitor who is willing and able to represent me, the Claimants can serve their litigation papers on him or her.
- Public Funding is available for me to defend this Claim, but I have heard of the Legal Aid Board refusing such applications. In that event, I would need to suspend full appointment until the solicitor has appealed drawing attention to relevant European Court determinations.
- I am keen to work with any solicitor, to know of his or her identity as soon as possible, and ensure if the Claimants can identify such a person, that their letter informing me is not somehow lost. Unlike the Claimants, I do not crave litigation.
- As far as I know, the Claimant block on my access to services, including all legal services, the subject of my first contact with Geraint Davies, then Member of Parliament for where I was living in Croydon, in 1998, is fully and completely extant, and is the reason Mr Davies decided not to help me in any way at all, but to become one of the Claimants.
- I do not know if a fee is applies to this application, but if one does I am exempt. One must make applications for fee exemption at the RCJ at a separate office, and submit evidence. Evidence is not readily available as benefit payments are made electronically, so I cannot simply copy a recent payment cheque, and all notices of benefit award are older than the 28 day maximum the Court Service applies to such evidence. Having applied for fee exemption, the RCJ office takes more than seven days to reply, and their responses to me are usually unhelpful. Hence, it is not possible to obtain the fee exemption certificate, and submit it with this application, within the Court imposed seven day time limit.
- I do not know if I am permitted to make this application at a District Registry, but it is irrelevant. Applications by me to the High Court at Oldham and Manchester County Courts, both District Registries, were never heard. This was noted HHJ Tetlow, with whom I believe the Court and the Claimants are familiar.
- I remain unable to obtain the mechanical device I need for the severe breathing difficulties, measured by machines. The nature of one of my sleep disorders, Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea, is that it always deteriorates with age. One’s ability to cope with sleep deprivation also deteriorates with age.
Page 5 of 8
- I am therefore becoming less able to defend myself owing to physical defects. This increases my need for legal help, particularly as I still do not understand the Claimants Injunctions, to the extent that understanding them is possible. Were a solicitor able to act for me, he or she could discover from the Court and the Claimants their intentions. As far as I can see, beyond a simple statement that the criminal law applies to me, those Orders have no practicable meaning.
- The Claimants are harassing me. A solicitor could negotiate an end to that.
- I am far less able to manage litigation than the Claimants, far less able to travel the distance between us, and, unlike the Claimants, at this time, I remain unable to appoint anyone to represent me in London, Oldham or anywhere else.
- The Claimants use web site monitors in Rochdale, the adjacent Metropolitan Borough to Oldham. They can appoint solicitors local to Oldham, if they want.
- The Court might consider moving hearing this case either to the better known Manchester Court Centre, or Liverpool, where Miss Sarah Branson read her law degree. I caution against both because Liverpool is further from London than Manchester, and Manchester has road congestion problems. By comparison, the M62 motorway joins Rochdale, and Oldham to the M6, and M1 from London.
- As Miss Sarah Branson claims she is frightened of me, and her fellow Claimant Geraint Davies accuses me of violence, they should feel safer when I am not in London, where they live. Geraint Davies says he has a young vulnerable family.
- Since Miss Sarah Branson claims she is frightened of me, I invite her to find someone who can help me keep my tenancy, and do it herself, if need arises, through her commitment to pro bono work, should we be unable to find any better method of remuneration.
- Miss Sarah Branson places her home address in the public telephone directory, and by applying for Order 1(h) of 10 May 2005, “not to publish confidential information concerning the Claimants, including their home addresses,” Barrister Miss Sarah Branson, an Officer of the Court, mislead the Court.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the contents of this witness statement are true.
Signed Thomas Moore
Dated 25 July 2005
Page 6 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO: HQ05X00419
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
In the matter of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
BETWEEN (1) SARAH BRANSON BA BARRISTER
(2) GERAINT DAVIES MP Applicants
and
Thomas Moore Defendant
EXHIBIT TO STATEMENT OF 25 July 2005
Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8
|
|
|
Page |
Court's
Response |
|
(2) GERAINT DAVIES MP Applicants and Thomas Moore Defendant WITNESS STATEMENT OF THOMAS MOORE, DEFENDANT |
|
|
Top
of Page |
|
Page |
Court's
Response |