Matt Wardman writes:
[Update 14/9/2008: After doing a more detailed analysis, David Keen suggests that my “Brewer and Pritchard plead mainly Guilty” headline is overoptimistic. We hope to cross-post David’s analysis here later today.]
I’ve had to revise the contents – this roundup is going to be in installments, like Jackanory. Today, tomorrow and Monday. Sorry – just too much happening, but mainly good.
“Brewer and Pritchard”
To be clear, this is not a “Google Bomb” (as has been in the news recently), it is Google making a decision that my Brewer and Pritchard, PC, accused of Misleading Texas Court article is the most relevant for the term “Brewer and Pritchard“.
I’ll report back on the statistics in a few days, but I had several visitors from this search term on Google in the first 12 hours.
Interviewees wanted for Radio 4 next week
From David Keen’s blog:
Radio 4 Sunday programme are hoping to do a follow up report on the SSG Bookshop issue including the outcome of the tribunal meetings and the issue of the court action against Mark Brewer. They need to be able to speak with the following people:
- 1) Someone who can speak on behalf of the ex SPCK Booksellers
- 2) A representative from the publishers
- 3) Someone who can speak on the wider Christian Bookselling issue.
If you would like to be considered for this please let me know at email@example.com
If this is you, please contact Phelim. I think they may also be interested in speaking to a creditor or two; anonymity may be possiblem – but that is my assumption.
You can hear the previous interview here
Brewer and Pritchard: “Largely Guilty as Charged, M’Lud”
I teased you yesterday with the text of the Brewer submission (mainly admission) in response to the Motion for Sanctions from Randy W Williams, the Trustee in Bankruptcy. Here’s the full text:
RESPONSE TO TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
[Refers to Docket # 31]
COMES NOW, J. Mark Brewer and the Law Firm of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. (“Brewer”) and files this request for hearing and Response to the Trustee’s Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”) by and through their attorney, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:
OVERVIEW OF RESPONSE
1. Brewer has recognized that the filing of the petition for relief in this case was ill advised and the continued prosecution of the case has caused the Court, the Office of the United States Trustee, and the Trustee to incur unnecessary costs. Brewer apologizes to the Court, the Trustee and the Office of the United States Trustee and is not opposed to providing payment to the Trustee, his Counsel, and the Office of the United States Trustee in an amount that is reasonable based on the circumstances of the case.
2. In addition to the m onetary payments recited in the foregoing paragraph and to educate himself regarding general bankruptcy principals, Mark Brewer proposes to complete Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) in a course on bankruptcy law that includes bankruptcy specific ethics credit.
3. The relief to the extent requested by the Motion goes beyond a remedy of the costs incurred and Mark Brewer now clearly realizes the gravity of the filing of the case with the facts that underlie this proceeding. Mark Brewer has consulted with bankruptcy counsel, has realized the grave seriousness of the filing and prosecution of the case and is sincerely remorseful and is unlikely to take such action in the future, if ever.
4. Brewer admits averments in paragraph 1 of the Motion that “On August 28, 2008. this Court held a hearing on the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss this case. The Motion was granted with prejudice. The Court found that he case was filed in bad faith. The Court reserved jurisdiction to consider any sanctions motions filed in this matter.” Brewer pleads that the remaining statements in paragraph 1 of the Motion are not allegations requiring admission or denial. However, Brewer denies that relief should be entered that exceeds the relief proposed in this Response.
5. Brewer admits averments in paragraph 2 of the Motion.
6. Brewer admits averments in paragraph 3 of the Motion.
7. Brewer admits averments in paragraph 1 of the Motion that “It is undisputed by Mr. Brewer that St. Stephens the Great, Ltd. is a corporation chartered in the United Kingdom. He claims that he is “authorized” to use the designation of LLC for St. Stephen the Great, Ltd.” and “At one time, the Debtor operated bookstores in England and Wales. It operated the bookstores on behalf of the registered charity, St. Stephens the Great Charitable Trust. On June 2, 2008, St. Stephens the Great Registered Charity terminated its agreement with the Debtor to operate the stores” and “Mr. Brewer admitted at the hearing on August 28, 2008 that the entity to whom operating rights was transferred (ENC Management Company) is another company set up by him and his brother Philip Brewer.” The Debtor has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining averments in paragraph 4 of the Motion.
8. Brewer pleads that the documents described by the Trustee are on file with the Court and represent the best evidence of the averments of paragraph 5 of the Motion. To the extent that such documents vary from the averments in this paragraph, Brewer denies such averments.
9. Brewer admits the averments in paragraph 6 of the Motion.
10. Brewer denies the averments in paragraph 7 of the Motion.
11. Brewer denies the remaining paragraphs in the Motion, for the reason that it contains legal argument in support of the relief. To the extent that such paragraphs are deemed to contain factual averments that require response, Brewer denies such factual averments.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, J. Mark Brewer and the Law Firm of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. respectfully request that the Court limit sanctions to the amount and type proposed herein, and grant such other and further relief as they may show themselves entitled, both at law and in equity.
Respectfully submitted on September 11, 2008.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER JOHNSON
/s/ Peter Johnson
Eleven Greenway Plaza, Suite 2820
Houston, Texas 77046
SBT #10778400 FB#2475
Attorney for Debtor
(I have left it verbatim except for the phone numbers etc. as I understand this to be a public Court document).
That’s all for this morning. More tomorrow, same time – when I’ll look at the concept of the “Brewer-Skewer” and “reverse Brewer-Skewer manoeuvre”, with respect to Employment Tribunals.