9 Lon Bryngwyn, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 0TX
Andy Lewis has been in breach of a court order since February 2015. He was ordered to release details of “the Big-Hitters” referred to in an email by Melanie Byng in 2012 when she said “Andy knows most of the big-hitters so he has put out a warning”.
We assume this refers to supposed “top” UK journalists and others, and includes the same admitted perjurious fake “clinical judgement” and such-like used by Melanie Byng, Professor Richard Byng and Dr Lewis himself, to harass our family through attacking Angel, in order to make her seem dangerous in the eyes of others and worthy of ostracisation.
In spite of their contempt for legal process and their admitted perjury, these stalking harassers have been given tremendous and dangerous power over our family by UK courts, and they want to get their hands on our home, 9 Lon Bryngwyn, Sketty, Swansea SA2 0TX, and sell it, to greedily divide up the money as another element of their harassment, as Melanie Byng years ago expressed her desire to make us bankrupt, as well as killing Angel.
Why Art for Evidence?
Some weeks ago, due to the ongoing intimidation, Angel took the children and left Steve staying in 9 Lon Bryngwyn on his own. He became morose and depressed, contemplating the massive injustice caused by the failure to recognise covert criminal harassment.
Steve found painting therapeutic, and expressed his sorrow and frustration at the violence our family experienced, following whistleblowing, including the assaults upon our integrity and personal safety, all of which has been condoned by the judiciary due to the lies and deceit perpetrated by Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave, and Jonathan Price of Doughty Street Chambers on behalf of Andy Lewis, Melanie Byng, and Professor Richard Byng. The loss of the house itself became the canvas.
Art/Ask for Evidence
The beneficial effect of expression led us to consider and plan an art exhibition, using a play on the empty slogan of so many supposed “skeptics”, who actually just accept whatever guff they’re fed as long as group loyalty is bolstered, people like Simon Singh, David Colquhoun, Edzard Ernst, and Stephen Law of the British Humanist Association, among so many others.
During the run up to the exhibition Bryan Cave continued their usual bullying, writing that it was “very serious” to be in breach of a court order and demanding our keys.
We responded to their demands for us to get out of 9 Lon Bryngwyn by reminding them about their own Order and asking them, if it was such a serious thing to breach an order as they were claiming, to obey theirs first.
Bryan Cave don’t find breaching an order they don’t want to obey to be “very serious” at all. They said they wouldn’t be providing the information: a clear indication of how incriminating it is i.e the breach must be significant, and had a likely effect on the outcome of the case as well as impacting numbers and class of publishees in defamation.
Put another way, it’s only because they didn’t obey their own order that they are now lecturing us about how important it is that we obey ours so they can steal our home.
When we politely asserted that the law must apply equally and that we would follow their lead in obeying court Orders, their guilty response was to break into 9 Lon Bryngwyn and change the locks.
This means that the whole exhibition couldn’t be housed with Steve’s quote-art.
So we’ve begun to install our “Art for Evidence” exhibition here instead and will he adding more to it over time.
Regular visitors will know that the evidence of everything illustrated below can be found on other pages and videos on this site.
ART for EVIDENCE
These highly paid people wilfully lied in “statements of truth”, tampered with evidence and purposefully altered chronology. The sole purpose of all of this?
This is part of an email Melanie Byng used to convince someone to ostracise us: “Angel has a borderline personality disorder. This is a clinical judgement, not a personal opinion. It isn’t simply depression. It makes her very dangerous, but luckily for us and sadly for others the danger is to those close to her.”
This isn’t the only example of such a horrendous smear. Others include (but are not limited to):
“my husband Richard had had a long phone conversation with Angel about her mother’s cancer treatment, from which he’d drawn a few conclusions. Richard is a GP & academic & an expert in primary care mental health, including personality disorder.”
“A couple of incidents (which had little to do with their project) convinced us that she is unstable”
“At the end of this is his clinical judgement, which she seems to have forgotten.”
The conclusion is unmistakable: Melanie Byng used her husband’s credentials to make people believe Angel was mentally unstable, which lead her to admit this in mediation:
“I want to make clear that there has been no clinical assessment of Angel Garden’s mental health by my husband, Ms Garden is not his patient and he has never diagnosed her with any mental health issue. Any comments I have made which might suggest otherwise are untrue and understandably distressing to Ms Garden.”
This shows obvious malice, and recklessness as to the truth.
But the admission was useless as a means towards settlement of the case because of this insistence: “Ms Garden and Mr Paris are not permitted to use the language above for any public purpose.”
So in court when she said, “if what you are saying is that I am pretending that Richard has made a diagnosis of Ms. Garden, it is completely untrue”, we were forbidden to tell the judge that she had admitted the opposite in a sealed document, and was therefore perjuring herself. Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave and Jonathan Price of Doughty Street Chambers knew she was lying, as did Andy Lewis and Professor Byng and were therefore all knowingly perverting the course of justice.
(that mediation document was released by Robert Dougans himself in July 2016 as part of the evidence he used to “prove” our house had to be sold from under us to pay his fees. Whether by design or by mistake, since this has then been referred to in open court, it is therefore legally allowed to now be in the public domain.)