"Ceylon" the UK's top Goodfer nothing

[Pox]

You mean to say that Haining actually ponied up the filing fee to get in to court?? That is funny. I can't imagine what is going to come out at that hearing, but I imagine the poor judge is going to be wondering why he came in that day. I can't imagine what Haining thinks he is going to accomplish here.

Maybe, if he is on benefits ( but God knows what for as he can clearly walk and talk so should be able to get a job) there is a discount or nil fees?

His travel costs to London though, surely these won't be covered?

Which makes me ask again, why isn't the hearing in Nottingham? (as he is the claimant)

[letissier14]

Just in from Bradley Knight

Love it - Mark Haining aka colon aka seylon aka ceylon has mentioned me as a party to a claim which he has made in the High Court. The documents i have seen are nonsense claiming all sorts of crap, talk about people in glass houses. It will take all of five minutes of his own audio to discredit that clown with his own crap. Its ironic that this prize prat states all judges are corrupt, yet he is seeking relief. What a tosser. The guy is off his rocker.....

So, this was from Bradley's Facebook page but as I don't do Facebook, I can't check.

Subsequently, Letissier14 confirmed that the case is Haining v Gillard.

Gillards new video - https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... r139D7g&a=

Anybody know anything more?

Letissier14 suggested in this thread that Bradley Knight would forward some of the paperwork but maybe BK thought it best to not publish at the moment.

Just out of interest, why do these cases have to be heard at the High Court?

I ask, because I am aware of a Civil Injunction case being held locally ( both parties lived within the jurisdiction of a local court) - I thought all cases are normally dealt with at the appropriate court closest to the claimant?


talks about the case being held on Tuesday

I've been asked not to disclose any of paperwork until after the hearing

[wanglepin]

I've been asked not to disclose any of paperwork until after the hearing

All odd and contradictory stuff concerning Mark Haining (Ceylon) here. He advocates lose the name etc (although he failed that little test once), So, under what name did he file the complaint,(Man with no name)? And how will he address himself to the court,("professional idiot") as in the case of an Ebert witness? What will he have down as his profession? Advice and Assistance in aiding people legally lose their homes maybe?

[FatGambit]

I bet the reason he's gone high court route is because it makes the whole thing sound more 'important'.

[PeanutGallery]

You mean to say that Haining actually ponied up the filing fee to get in to court?? That is funny. I can't imagine what is going to come out at that hearing, but I imagine the poor judge is going to be wondering why he came in that day. I can't imagine what Haining thinks he is going to accomplish here.

Maybe, if he is on benefits ( but God knows what for as he can clearly walk and talk so should be able to get a job) there is a discount or nil fees?

His travel costs to London though, surely these won't be covered?

Which makes me ask again, why isn't the hearing in Nottingham? (as he is the claimant)

Their would be a fee exemption if he is on a low income or benefits, part of the whole making justice available to all and not just those with the means to pay, it is a good system although it can be open to abuse - namely people on a low income using litigation in order to harass or bully or even intimidate an opponent. However simply qualifying for a fee exemption does not remove the possibility of incurring costs, should they be awarded to the opposition, so one would be cautioned to think before litigating, can you afford it should it all go tits up.

As for why Mark has gone to the High Court, likely it's part of the woo that claims that the only fair court is the High Court Queens Bench Division and that all other courts are commercial business centres. It's bollocks, but if Mark Gillard wanted to mess with Haining he could write to the court requesting the case be transferred to a court local to him (the Defendant has the right to a hearing local to them).

It would be simple enough to do, just write to the court and explain that the matter can be dealt with at the county court level, it is a routine enough case and that the case should also be transferred to a court local to Mr Gillard because of his health problems, a failure to do so would cause him significant difficulty in appearing and refuting these allegations.

I would wager that if the case wasn't being heard in the High Court, that Haining would drop the matter because he won't be able to bring his dog and pony(tail) show to town.

[ArthurWankspittle]

One day I'll read it all up and get it straight in my mind. I think it has to be the High Court because the complaint is asking for an injunction and you can't get an injunction in a County Court. Alternatively, it has to be "urgent" and therefore has to go to High Court as some category of "urgent"; if it were listed for County Court, you would be getting a hearing in February probably in the normal course of things.
Edit: You can get an injunction in a County Court. I think this going to High Court is a speed and publicity thing unless Haining knows there is some legal reason why it has to be High Court (unlikely).
It also may be a tactic by Haining because it is a lot easier for him to get to the High Court than it is for Gillard. However, that could backfire because the judge could say go and sort it out in the local County Court which, as has been suggested, would allow Gillard to get the case moved to his local County Court (Preston?) due to his personal circumstances.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So Haining is seeking justice in a court that he claims is corrupt and commits fraud on a regular basis. But in this instance he believes if the corrupt fraudulent court delivers the decision he wants the corrupt fraudulent court's decision will be binding and not fraudulent.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So Haining is seeking justice in a court that he claims is corrupt and commits fraud on a regular basis. But in this instance he believes if the corrupt fraudulent court delivers the decision he wants the corrupt fraudulent court's decision will be binding and not fraudulent.

To paraphrase Steve Bell: He's not two faced. He's continuously and persistently been a hypocrite.

[Pox]

One day I'll read it all up and get it straight in my mind. I think it has to be the High Court because the complaint is asking for an injunction and you can't get an injunction in a County Court. Alternatively, it has to be "urgent" and therefore has to go to High Court as some category of "urgent"; if it were listed for County Court, you would be getting a hearing in February probably in the normal course of things.
Edit: You can get an injunction in a County Court. I think this going to High Court is a speed and publicity thing unless Haining knows there is some legal reason why it has to be High Court (unlikely).
It also may be a tactic by Haining because it is a lot easier for him to get to the High Court than it is for Gillard. However, that could backfire because the judge could say go and sort it out in the local County Court which, as has been suggested, would allow Gillard to get the case moved to his local County Court (Preston?) due to his personal circumstances.

Yes, you can get an injunction in County Court - I am looking at one now.
In terms of speed, the application for a without notice injunction was made on the 8 January and the penal notice was made on the 10 January so (unless this is an isolated incident), injunctions issued by a County Court appear to be quite prompt.

P.S. The court fee was £175 - the claimant did not qualify for any discount.
P.P.S. Maybe it has had to go to the High Court because of the nature of the injunction being sought?
The injunction referred to above was sought because the applicant was claiming that the actions of the defendant caused 'alarm,distress and fear of violence'.
Maybe, if an injunction is sought to prevent libel, for example, it must go to a different court?
I don't know, just wondering?

[letissier14]

Haining is seeking injunctive relief from harassment and threatening behaviour

[Pox]

Haining is seeking injunctive relief from harassment and threatening behaviour

If that is the case, I can see no reason why the hearing could not have been held locally to one of the parties, nor why a without notice injunction was not sought.

Harassment and threatening behaviour - well he should know, he is a past master - got cups for it!

[ArthurWankspittle]

Haining is seeking injunctive relief from harassment and threatening behaviour

I'm trying to contain myself until the outcome of the hearing.

[Greengrass]

Think you will probably find Nottingham County Court also acts as a District Registry of the High Court and applications can be made & heard locally.

[NG3]

Haining is seeking injunctive relief from harassment and threatening behaviour

Translated: He doesn't want Gillard reporting what happens at his trial eg. perhaps not losing the name, pleading, going yes sir and no sir, or even maybe employing a solicitor?

If that is the plan it's failed already as others will be in attendance, and the truth will out.

[YiamCross]

Haining is seeking injunctive relief from harassment and threatening behaviour

If that is the case, I can see no reason why the hearing could not have been held locally to one of the parties, nor why a without notice injunction was not sought.

Harassment and threatening behaviour - well he should know, he is a past master - got cups for it!

One word covers it. Stupidity.

[AndyPandy]

INTERIM APPLICATIONS COURT

COURT 37

Before MR JUSTICE BLAKE

Tuesday, 13th October 2015

APPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE#

Not before 11 o’clock

APPLICATION NOTICE

IHQ/15/0564 Haining v Gillard

[Pox]

INTERIM APPLICATIONS COURT

COURT 37

Before MR JUSTICE BLAKE

Tuesday, 13th October 2015

APPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE#

Not before 11 o’clock

APPLICATION NOTICE

IHQ/15/0564 Haining v Gillard

The court listing says that Mr Justice Blake will be unrobed.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court ... eens-bench

Doesn't that mean that even if any order is signed wet ink (at a 45 degree angle) and covered in seals, and isn't something that 'can de downloaded from the Internet by anybody' blah, blah, blah that it is invalid because the Judge wasn't ROBED.

[AndyPandy]

INTERIM APPLICATIONS COURT

COURT 37

Before MR JUSTICE BLAKE

Tuesday, 13th October 2015

APPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE#

Not before 11 o’clock

APPLICATION NOTICE

IHQ/15/0564 Haining v Gillard

The court listing says that Mr Justice Blake will be unrobed.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court ... eens-bench

Doesn't that mean that even if any order is signed wet ink (at a 45 degree angle) and covered in seals, and isn't something that 'can de downloaded from the Internet by anybody' blah, blah, blah that it is invalid because the Judge wasn't ROBED.

Absolutely, in which case we can only hope he takes Neela along who will arrest the Judge for Treason !!

[NG3]

The court listing says that Mr Justice Blake will be unrobed.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court ... eens-bench

Being a good freeman, after refusing to give his name, he will surely protest this fact and demand the judge robes, or is replaced.

I mean he's not going to stand there and be a complete hypocrite, is he?

[FatGambit]

Would that be before or after he demands to see the Judge's birth certificate to prove his first name is Justice?