Barrister Adam Speker Fraud
LETTER SENT TO BAR STANDARDS BOARD AFTER THEIR CLAIM THAT BARRISTER WHO COMMITTED FRAUD FROM PUBLIC PURSE HAD NOT BREACHED ANY OF HIS OBLIGATIONS IN THEIR HANDBOOK.
Dear Mr Kingsford
Re: Barrister Adam Speker Fraud REF PR 2016/0586
In your email to me dated 19th August 2016 you state that you have carefully considered the matters I raised in my complaint about Barrister Adam Speaker and that you have determined that NO BREACH of the BSB Handbook had been substantiated. Your response has been troubling me and I feel I must press the matter with you further.
Let me firstly bring to your attention what is written on your own website which states examples of professional misconduct: MISLEADING THE COURT, ACTING DISHONESTLY OR IN A WAY THAT DAMAGES THE PROFESSIONS REPUTATION.
Sir in my complaint letter to you I clearly informed you of Adam Speker committing SERIOUS FRAUD, CONSPIRING WITH A LOCAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS TO COMMIT SERIOUS FRAUD BY WAY OF THEFT FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE, AIDING AND ABETTING EMPLOYEES OF THAT COUNCIL TO COMMIT MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, PROMOTION OF ILLEGAL PRACTICE AMONGST HIS PEERS AND CIVIL MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. I clearly informed you of how Adam Speaker was in fact the exposer of his own fraudulent and illegal actions by his participation in an identical case in 2006, that case being Sunderland Housing Company and others v Baines and others, that case which POSITIVELY PROVES MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADAM SPEKER IS STILL BEING ADVERTISED ON 5RB CHAMBERS WEBSITE, rather interestingly however 5RB have removed the identity of the representing barrister from their main page since Adam Speker committed his illegal actions but Adam Speker still proudly claims responsibility as the acting barrister in his own featured cases on the website. LET ME AGAIN REMIND YOU AS I DID IN MY COMPLAINT LETTER THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPLETELY UNCHALLENGED.....NOT ONE SINGLE WORD HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD IN DEFENCE OF ADAM SPEAKER BY ANYONE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING HIMSELF! AND NOTABLY THE BSB
My colleagues and I would like to ask you the following questions...
1.Are we correct in thinking as your response implies that the BSB do not consider the above PROVEN actions by Adam Speker to be dishonest?
2.Are we correct in thinking as your response implies that the BSB do not consider the above PROVEN actions by Adam Speker to be severe enough to damage the professions reputation?
Let me now draw to your attention THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BARRISTERS in part 2 of the BSB HANDBOOK which states at:
RC6 that a barrister has a duty not to mislead the court or permit the court to be misled and and that this will be inclusive of a barristers following obligations...
A barrister must not (a) make submissions, representations or any other statement or (b) ask questions which suggest facts to witnesses which the barrister his/herself or under instruction knows are untrue or misleading.
Barrister Adam Speker as stated in my complaint to the BSB did exactly that by verbally submitting evidence that he knew did not exist in order to pursue his clients claim against Mr Pickthall, such verbal submission being reckless in misleading the court to believe that documented evidence to support his clients claims existed when he knew that they did not exist.
GC4 definees "reckless" as being indifferent to the truth, not caring whether something is true or false!
GC13 If a barrister becomes aware that his/her client has a document which should be disclosed but has not been disclosed, the barrister CAN NOT CONTINUE TO ACT UNLESS THEIR CLIENT AGREES TO DISCLOSURE OF THE DOCUMENT. in these circumstances the barrister must not reveal the existence or the contents of the document to the court.
Sir, in my letter of complaint i clearly stated that Adam Speker had told the court of the existence of 1200 emails, THAT IS ONE THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED DOCUMENTS, I clearly state that Adam Speker's clients REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH DISCLOSURE REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS .......The fact is that without claiming to have these documents Adam Speker HAD NOTHING ON WHICH TO BRING ANY CLAIM AGAINST MR PICKTHALL.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME AND MY COLLEAGUES AT JUSTICE WATCH EXACTLY HOW BARRISTER ADAM SPEKER IS NOT IN PATENT BREACH OF WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BSB HANDBOOK!
DC1 A barrister must observe his/her duty to the court in the administration of justice.
Can you please give an explanation of your rationale as to why the BSB consider Adam Speker has not breached his duty to the court where the administration of justice is concerned?
DC3 A barrister must act with HONESTY AND INTEGRITY
Sir, Are my colleagues and I at justice watch correct in assuming by your response to our complaint that the BSB ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Adam Speker has acted honestly and with integrity?
CD5 A barrister must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or their profession.
As a member of the public supported by many other members of the public at justice watch I am informing the BSB that Adam Speaker is 100% in breach of this obligation
Mr Kingsford I have not trawled through the BSB handbook looking for breaches but clearly there have been breaches yet you state that there have not.
Re. your instructions to fill in a complaint form, I have noted that there does not appear to be any official requirement for complaints to be submitted in such a manner,
On behalf of myself and my colleagues at justice watch and in the public interest I would like to ask the BSB to reconsider our complaint.
Kind regards
Ms Zelda Davies (on behalf of Justice watch and the public interest)
Dear Mr Kingsford
Re: Barrister Adam Speker Fraud REF PR 2016/0586
In your email to me dated 19th August 2016 you state that you have carefully considered the matters I raised in my complaint about Barrister Adam Speaker and that you have determined that NO BREACH of the BSB Handbook had been substantiated. Your response has been troubling me and I feel I must press the matter with you further.
Let me firstly bring to your attention what is written on your own website which states examples of professional misconduct: MISLEADING THE COURT, ACTING DISHONESTLY OR IN A WAY THAT DAMAGES THE PROFESSIONS REPUTATION.
Sir in my complaint letter to you I clearly informed you of Adam Speker committing SERIOUS FRAUD, CONSPIRING WITH A LOCAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS TO COMMIT SERIOUS FRAUD BY WAY OF THEFT FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE, AIDING AND ABETTING EMPLOYEES OF THAT COUNCIL TO COMMIT MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, PROMOTION OF ILLEGAL PRACTICE AMONGST HIS PEERS AND CIVIL MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. I clearly informed you of how Adam Speaker was in fact the exposer of his own fraudulent and illegal actions by his participation in an identical case in 2006, that case being Sunderland Housing Company and others v Baines and others, that case which POSITIVELY PROVES MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADAM SPEKER IS STILL BEING ADVERTISED ON 5RB CHAMBERS WEBSITE, rather interestingly however 5RB have removed the identity of the representing barrister from their main page since Adam Speker committed his illegal actions but Adam Speker still proudly claims responsibility as the acting barrister in his own featured cases on the website. LET ME AGAIN REMIND YOU AS I DID IN MY COMPLAINT LETTER THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPLETELY UNCHALLENGED.....NOT ONE SINGLE WORD HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD IN DEFENCE OF ADAM SPEAKER BY ANYONE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING HIMSELF! AND NOTABLY THE BSB
My colleagues and I would like to ask you the following questions...
1.Are we correct in thinking as your response implies that the BSB do not consider the above PROVEN actions by Adam Speker to be dishonest?
2.Are we correct in thinking as your response implies that the BSB do not consider the above PROVEN actions by Adam Speker to be severe enough to damage the professions reputation?
Let me now draw to your attention THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BARRISTERS in part 2 of the BSB HANDBOOK which states at:
RC6 that a barrister has a duty not to mislead the court or permit the court to be misled and and that this will be inclusive of a barristers following obligations...
A barrister must not (a) make submissions, representations or any other statement or (b) ask questions which suggest facts to witnesses which the barrister his/herself or under instruction knows are untrue or misleading.
Barrister Adam Speker as stated in my complaint to the BSB did exactly that by verbally submitting evidence that he knew did not exist in order to pursue his clients claim against Mr Pickthall, such verbal submission being reckless in misleading the court to believe that documented evidence to support his clients claims existed when he knew that they did not exist.
GC4 definees "reckless" as being indifferent to the truth, not caring whether something is true or false!
GC13 If a barrister becomes aware that his/her client has a document which should be disclosed but has not been disclosed, the barrister CAN NOT CONTINUE TO ACT UNLESS THEIR CLIENT AGREES TO DISCLOSURE OF THE DOCUMENT. in these circumstances the barrister must not reveal the existence or the contents of the document to the court.
Sir, in my letter of complaint i clearly stated that Adam Speker had told the court of the existence of 1200 emails, THAT IS ONE THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED DOCUMENTS, I clearly state that Adam Speker's clients REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH DISCLOSURE REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS .......The fact is that without claiming to have these documents Adam Speker HAD NOTHING ON WHICH TO BRING ANY CLAIM AGAINST MR PICKTHALL.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME AND MY COLLEAGUES AT JUSTICE WATCH EXACTLY HOW BARRISTER ADAM SPEKER IS NOT IN PATENT BREACH OF WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BSB HANDBOOK!
DC1 A barrister must observe his/her duty to the court in the administration of justice.
Can you please give an explanation of your rationale as to why the BSB consider Adam Speker has not breached his duty to the court where the administration of justice is concerned?
DC3 A barrister must act with HONESTY AND INTEGRITY
Sir, Are my colleagues and I at justice watch correct in assuming by your response to our complaint that the BSB ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Adam Speker has acted honestly and with integrity?
CD5 A barrister must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or their profession.
As a member of the public supported by many other members of the public at justice watch I am informing the BSB that Adam Speaker is 100% in breach of this obligation
Mr Kingsford I have not trawled through the BSB handbook looking for breaches but clearly there have been breaches yet you state that there have not.
Re. your instructions to fill in a complaint form, I have noted that there does not appear to be any official requirement for complaints to be submitted in such a manner,
On behalf of myself and my colleagues at justice watch and in the public interest I would like to ask the BSB to reconsider our complaint.
Kind regards
Ms Zelda Davies (on behalf of Justice watch and the public interest)
