Main Menu

Intro) Listen to Muriel Gray lie

1) Muriel Gray's High Court claim 17 Dec 09 against Geoff Widders

2) Proof of the date of Geoff Widders novel

3) Muriel Gray lied to the audience

4) Costs and Gillian Cross

5) The Ancient 2000 IS A FABRICATION

6) Deception Exposed

7) "A tomorrow's chip wrapper affair "

8) Muriel Gray "one of the most insulting things"

9) "best investigative journalism in the field today "

10) Support for a lie?

11) GW Book

12) Muriel Gray's "homage"(s)

13) FantasyCon 2012

14) Complaint to Glasgow School of Art

LEGAL SECTION

Intro) Summary of LEGAL SECTION

A) Letter to Lord Woolf

B) "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here"

C) Appendix 2 : Declaratory Judgment

D) Appendix 3 : Law Commission

E) Mr Justice Roth's reply. GW comments

Fi) Three Complaints to Ms Judy Anckorn, "Office for Judicial Complaints" (OJC)

Fii) Three Complaints to Sir John Brigstocke, "Judicial Ombudsman"

Fiii) Correspondence with Ms Anckorn (OJC), and Sir John Brigstocke

G) Complaint to the "Solicitor's Regulation Authority "

H) Nichola Evans of Browne Jacobson fabricated costs

I) Chancery Division

J) Report of the Lord Neuberger Committee

K) Letter of Intent

SCALES OF JUSTICE

Intro) Scales of Justice

i) Pursuit of Justice OR Pursuit of Money and Power?

ii) Report of the Lady Neuberger Committee

iii) The Infallibility of Judges

CUSTOM SEARCH

RSS Feeds / Share

Subscribe in a reader

Read / Sample / Purchase Flight of the Shaman

"So obviously he was a nutter."

 

7) "A tomorrow's chip wrappers affair "

 

Ms Nichola Evans, "Solicitor of the Supreme Court", Partner in Browne Jacobson stated in her Skeleton Argument, submitted to Mr Justice Roth, sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court;-

19
"Even if the Claimant is proved correct, there is no benefit to him in this. As a result of the previous television career of the Defendant such decision may on a slow news day, merit some passing attention in the depths of one or two newspapers, but will be very much a 'tomorrow's chip wrappers' affair. Contrary to the judge's view, and it would appear the reason for allowing the claim to continue, it does not obtain him any concrete benefits."

---

 

From: G Widders

To:     Muriel Gray [and her legal team]

Harper Collins [Executive Officers]

 

Date:  26 June 10

I intend to publish this letter to my website. In common with my other letters I would ask that if you have any objections to anything I have stated that you inform me of such; if I have misconstrued, if I have maligned anybody, etc. etc. please inform me. If there is any part of this letter that you take issue with please inform me of that part, and of your concern, so that I can consider your objection. Failing that I will publish this letter on my website in one week.

 

“A tomorrow’s chip wrapper affair”

1. In 2001 my brother heard Muriel Gray in an interview on BBC radio in which she was promoting her (soon-to-be-published) book 'The Ancient'. He listened to her discussing and expounding upon her book and told me that it sounded so remarkably similar to my book, 'Flight of the Shaman,' that I should “check it out.” I checked it out and came to the conclusion that, in Ms Gray's own words, the two books were “practically the double” and that, “she's stolen my story.” I then contacted HarperCollins, sending them a number of detailed letters that listed the similarities.

2. HarperCollins' solicitors denied the above, in addition Ms Gray assured them that she had not had sight or sound of my work, etc. I did not have the means to challenge HarperCollins and/or Ms Gray. However, in 2007, I placed an extensive record of my allegations against Ms Gray with both her and HarperCollins. It was my hope that the future might turn up something upon which I could act. I feared the legal system – subsequent events were to prove my fears to be correct.

3. It was not until 2008 that I came across the transcript of Ms Gray's interview, an interview that had taken place in 2004. I realised that she had made statements which said a great deal. I felt that I had a simple straightforward claim that I could take to the courts that would show Ms Gray to have lied. I felt that I had an absolute truth that could not be contraverted.

4. I issued a claim against Ms Gray in the Small Claims Court [view it here], I simply asked the court to rule upon who had written their book first. Ms Gray had claimed to the audience that my work was not written until “long after” hers. I knew different and knew that she also knew different, that she had lied to the audience. I thought that all that would happen was that we would appear in court, show our evidence, and that the court would decide who was telling the truth.

5. As my webpage ' 1) Muriel Gray's High Court claim against Geoff Widders' explains, Ms Gray's legal team were not in the business of wanting to show evidence. They wrote to the court asking that my claim be struck out on legal grounds. The judge said that the claim must progress. The legal team then put in a “Strike Out Application” that was passed up to a circuit judge to decide whether my Small Claim should be allowed to progress.

6. The first words stated by the circuit judge, His Honour Judge Reid QC, to Ms Gray's solicitor in the first hearing on 12 May 09 were, "He's after a simple declaration isn't he?" And that is what the whole of the matter boiled down to - a simple declaration of whether I wrote my book before Muriel Gray or whether she was correct in stating that it was not written until “long after” her book was in print.

7. After two hearings before His Honour Judge Reid QC my claim was allowed to progress. What is more he refused Ms Gray's lawyers leave to appeal. He also stated that, “…the defendant was not wholly justified in bringing the strike out application.”

8. Instead of Ms Gray or her legal representatives simply appearing in court and producing evidence to back up her statement to the audience [that I wrote my book "long after" hers] they continued to seek to have my claim struck out on legal grounds. They had been refused leave to Appeal but put in an Appeal to the High Court.

9. A matter which which could quite easily have been settled in the Small Claims Court had now been fought by Ms Gray all the way to the High Court, where her “Solicitor of the Supreme Court” stated that this matter is;-

   “a tomorrow's chip wrapper affair.”

Ms Gray employed two solicitors and a barrister to prevent this “tomorrow's chip wrapper affair” from being heard.

10. Muriel Gray had told the audience that my work was written "long after" her work was in print. I disputed this. The courts could have resolved that genuine dispute. Mr Justice Roth asked me, "You know that your work was written before Ms Gray's don't you?" I said that I did. Mr Justice Roth said that there was nothing to prove, that I knew my work was written first. I said that I knew my work was written before Ms Gray's but she disputed it – and that her lie remained on the internet. I said that I had the evidence to prove my claim – that we should both show our evidence.

11. Mr Justice Roth spoke of his concern of opening the "floodgates" and his concern for "famous people." I wonder what he would think if he had the latest evidence to emerge of the fabricated book deception – a deception that was exposed following an “Anonymous” blogger informing me that Ms Gray's book was published in 2000 and was on sale on the internet. I have proven (through enquiries to all the regulatory bodies) that the book does not exist – that it is a complete fabrication and yet the phantom book has a genuine HarperCollins ISBN assigned to it.

    [see 5) The Ancient 2000 does not exist and 6) Deception Exposed ]

12. Mr Justice Roth used his “discretion” and awarded the decision and costs to Ms Gray and her legal team. Ms Gray and her legal team had eventually succeeded in preventing my Small Claim from being examined. She has not had to account for her lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My undertaking If there is anything that I have stated on this site that is not correct; if Muriel Gray, Harper Collins, Browne Jacobson, or any person(s) mentioned in these pages, contacts me and provides the evidence or counter argument to show that I am not correct, or... if there is anything that I have stated that anybody believes misrepresents them in any way, if they provide me with their arguments... then, if necessary, I will consider removing the material, and/or publish a correction, and/or apologise. If I do not hear anything (nobody has complained to me since I set up this site in March 2010) then I can only assume the accuracy of everything on this site, and that nobody has been misrepresented in any way. G Widders

 

top