Google Olympics, Brewer and Pritchard plead mainly Guilty, Radio 4 Interviews: SPCK Weekly: 13/9/2008:

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”

I have won the Brewer and Pritchard bplaw.com Google Olympics (for today at least) and I claim my Gold Medal – click through for a bigger screenshot:

20080913-brewer-and-pritchard-google-search-screendump

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:

PLEASE 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 spckrefugee@operamail.com

Phelim McIntyre

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

By:___________________________

PETER JOHNSON

Eleven Greenway Plaza, Suite 2820

Houston, Texas 77046

Telephone xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Telefax xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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).

Wrapping Up

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.

Advertisements

21 responses to “Google Olympics, Brewer and Pritchard plead mainly Guilty, Radio 4 Interviews: SPCK Weekly: 13/9/2008:

  1. You’re right, it is a public document available to anyone who subscribes to the US PACER court document system. Anyone can do this, and is charged 8 cents per page to extract the data.

  2. So Mark Brewer is denying most of the more damaging allegations, and apologising for doing something ‘ill advised’ which has cost the court time and money. He’s going to do some training in bankruptcy law (bit late for that, you might say), rather than the specific legal ethics training which was proposed. And he might shell out a ‘reasonable’ amount of money – the inference being that the quantities mentioned in the motion against him aren’t reasonable.

    And that’s it.

    With my Dave Walker hat on, it’s interesting that “The Debtor has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining averments in paragraph 4 of the Motion.” That’s the paragraph with the Cartoon Blog citation in it. So MB doesn’t know enough about this blog and its contents to make a statement to a court.

    Hang on Mark, less than 2 months ago you were going to sue Dave Walker for libel for this stuff, and now you have ‘insufficient knowledge?’ If that’s the case, then you need to drop that Cease and Desist, or face another failed suit if and when Dave calls your bluff.

  3. And Mark, old chap, please note that I haven’t forgotten all the false allegations you made about me in that message you copied to my editor at Christian Marketplace…

    As part of your remedial education, you may wish to refer to Matt Wardman’s analysis of that episode: Cease and Desist Letters, and a Case Study from Brewer and Pritchard P.C. (bplaw.com).

    Now, what’s this I hear about you phoning people with offers of out of court settlements? You have my number, Mark…

  4. Brewer admits averment. What are averments? We desperately need someone to translate the legalese into ordinary English. Unless we do so, we will lose the interest of booksellers reading this blog. A common question I have been asked lately is, “Is this good or bad?”

  5. Mark Brewer reads this blog as does Phil. According to Phil Groom, Mark is ringing a whole lot of people. I want to say, “stop wasting money on your phone bill and please do not ring me. I don’t want to hear that Texan drawl.” Phil fired another person through an agency this week. I want to say to Phil, “you can blow out a candle but you can’t blow out a fire”.

  6. I am starting a new job on Monday (yes this is hot off the press news) so it is not that convenient for me to do the Radio 4 interview so offers – PLEASE.

  7. Simply to clarify: I’m told that some calls have been made. Whether that’s to “a whole lot of people” or just to a select few is another matter…

    As for ‘averments’ — a Google definition search (define:averment) offers:

    • a positive statement of truth or formal allegation in a pleading
    http://www.thedailyrecord.info/glossary.htm

    • assertion: a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    • The act of averring, or that which is averred; affirmation; positive assertion; Verification; establishment by evidence; A positive statement of facts; an allegation; an offer to justify or prove what is alleged
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/averment

    So if I’m reading that right, try substituting the word “assertions” for “averments” and you won’t go too far wrong, though an averment seems to imply something a bit stronger than a simple assertion…

    (and that would be PhiBre who’s been firing people, by the way, not me)

  8. Rolling over on a sanctions motion? Ouch . . . .

  9. Fantastic news Phelim but please don’t go awhol. Phil Groom I apologise, Phoebe has fired people. I didn’t expect a dictionary so I guess I’ll just have to read the whole dang thing and write it in English.

  10. Phelim, I meant awol. Just in case Peter Kirk wants to correct my English. My home language is Zulu.

  11. We’ll take the need for translation and commentary on board, but at the moment there’s just too much going on for me to do it immediately all the time.

    I’ll add a brief glossary next time.

    Will do our best.

  12. Asingleblog, I wondered if you thought Phelim might go a whole something, like the whole hog, and then cut it off in the middle. But now I understand “awol”. (Phelim, please don’t go there!) You are welcome to correct my Zulu any time, in the unlikely event that I ever blog in it.

  13. I am not going anywhere. Later today I hope to put up the notes from the meeting on Wednesday. Put simply I am here for the long haul. Yes the job may mean I can not do the Radio 4 interview but having got something positive for us to go forward with I am not going to stop now.

  14. I wonder if Dave Walker himself could do the Sunday programme interview?

    If Brewer’s libel threat only covers his blog, then there’s nothing to stop Dave speaking on the radio. And if he can’t do the interview, then we can tell the Beeb why they can no longer speak to the guy they spoke to last time, in this free country of ours.

  15. >libel threat only covers his blog

    One more time 🙂

    Paper tigers don’t roar.

  16. Pingback: Analysis of Brewer and Pritchard plea, Jobs Board, Blog Stats: SPCK Update 15/9/2008 « SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info

  17. Pingback: Analysis of Brewer and Pritchard plea, Jobs Board, Blog Stats: SPCK Update 15/9/2008: | The Wardman Wire

  18. Please don’t call Mark Brewer a paper tiger – it’s an insult to tigers.

    In the light of MB’s actions over the sanctions I would call him a paper chicken but with his track record MB would probably squawk fowl.

  19. I don’t recall there being any paper involved either; but we do have some pdfs… (sorry, just remembered: there was some paper after all!)

  20. Valiant for Truth

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke)

  21. Edmund Burke never said that,
    What he did say is much more apt anyway – I used it here:
    http://squigglejones.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/silence-is-not-always-golden/
    His ‘Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents’ is well worth the read and consideration.
    This much used misquote dates only from the 1940’s!
    Though the quote is a misquote the sentiment is true, and I hold to the ideal along with the other ones such as the motto of the Christopher Society of ‘better to light a candle than curse the darkness!’ and of course also Martin Niemoller’s ‘They Came.
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the communists
    and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me –
    and by then there was no one left to speak out for me. ‘
    It’s all about individual responsibility being a corporate responsibilty that none can or should avoid – perhaps!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s