Friday, January 26, 2018

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2017 as well as Happy Birthday to me 2018

I had a brilliant Christmas and partied at New Year too. I am going to the ballet,The Nutcracker, for my birthday treat at the weekend  My New Year Resolution is to upload case number 3 in the Royal Courts of Justice as I had promised to do sometime ago.

I was very disappointed with case No3 before Sir Robert Owen QC not least because he refused to deal with the corruption on the Masons case - at the EAT stage (refer elsewhere for data).  He said if I pursued this I would definitely loose my case against  S J Berwin and others.  So I said "in a raven's nest you should find a raven".  "in a judgment you should find a rule of law" and left it at that.

However, I did not win the SJB case either largely through in experience. My cross-examination was a disaster.  I had only just got started when the judge asked me whether I had finished yet.  So I said finished even although I had substantial cross examination yet to do.  I got the impression I was being ordered to finish.

Had I gone on to cross-examine properly, I would have broken the case down into its four component parts : sex discrimination both direct and indirect; breach of contract; professional negligence; personal injury.

1.  My cross-examation would have shown sex discrimination concerning the performance figures especially the page where Elie Zekaria was doing 131% and I was doing 49% with Solomon Wifa doing 79%.  Solomon was an agency worker, whereas Elie Zekaria and myself were employees hence Elie Zekaria was the male comparator.  The second litigation refused to accept Elie Zekaria as the male comparator and a complete nonsense occurred via the court.   
2. Indirect Sex Discrimination occurred in a meeting with Ian Insley and Julian Critchlow on 10 June 1996 wherein I was sidelined to administrative tasks and all other paralegals were assigned to paralegal assignments, such as Elie Zekaria under Zak Mulla, Solomon Wifa under David Stewart and Simon Williams and Chris Drayton to the first tranche of the Guiness Grandmet merger creating Diageo plc which I subsequently engaged with in Tranche 2.  My performance figures are demonstrative that there was a workload problem in the department and rather than treat me as a paralegal proper (perhaps because my contract was in repudiatory breach) I experienced less favourable treatment having to do archiving and a pilot library for which there was already existing personnel to do these activities.  As I had previously been a legal secretary from a group comprised mostly of women it was deemed that I should do administration tasks rather than paralegal tasks albeit I did get work from Nicholas Carnell who was bullish and unfit as a supervisor.

3.  The contract had been in repudiatory breach for 2 1/2 years until I whistleblew in an Employment Seminar which resulted in  a new contract on or about 18 May 1998.

4.  Most of the paperwork relating to Nick Carnell was professional negligence.

5.  And finally both our Consultants were agreed that I had developed paranoid schizophrenia during my time at SJB as a consequence of the Woolf Reforms.  Respondents' consultant was a professor of psychiatry and was in joint agreement with my own consultant.

The Official Solicitor was requested twice and on both occasions deemed herself unable to Act.  The first because I was not a patient and the second due to the funding cuts under the Woolf Reforms impacting on her department.  She could have tried the pro bono unit but did not do so and there was a distinct lack of empathy from her [Samson-Tandoh], ie she did not try at all to do an order of the court.

Needless to say the Judgment does not reflect any of the above in it yet it was clear from pleadings and evidence.  Sir Robert Owen QC's judgment appears to be one of fabrication but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it as you do not automatically receive a copy of the judgment from the Royal Courts of Justice.  I would say that justice was deliberately denied to me.

2007-12-27 Application Notice
2005-02-14 Defence
2005-03-26 Skeleton Argument
Skeleton Argument Court of Appeal
2005-03-20 Medical Report D
2005-05-10 Order
2005-07-05 Medical Report L
2005-08-10 Joint Medical Report D&L
2005-09-23 Claimant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-23 Defendant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-27 Order
2006-03-09 Claimant's Second Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2006-03-24 Order
2006-07-28 Order
2007-11-07 Application to lift the stay
2012-05-26 Application hearing
2012-07-17 Order
2013-04-10 Witness Statement LDM
2013-06-25 Originating application 2
2013-07-22 Response to Defendant's Request for Further Information
An attempt at conflict resolution was made with 10% of losses being proferred but not accepted.
2013-09-16 Consent Revised Order
2014-02-16 Skeleton Argument
2006-28-07 Order

These are all the documents I had in my possession up until trial.  There may however be further documents in the trial bundles [15 lever arch files] which were delivered up to the court on the day of trial.  I have not looked to see what the 15 lever arch files comprise.  My bundle was 1 lever arch file only.

As I  have suggested before there is a need to split litigated cases into two categories: those that reiterate what the law is and those that challenge the law.  The latter are the most important stages in society.  I would also respectfully suggest the Woolf Reforms be deemed a complete nonsense and failure as just a Jewish scam and that the courts be significantly overhauled such that a case cannot take more than 6 months as opposed to in my case 22 years in court on three litigations two of which took 10 years or more.

I am still waiting for parliamentary sovereignty and will contact my MP again.

Anyway have a lovely 2018.  I am more or less finished blogging for now as there is not much going on in society due to Brexit politically.  Remember this is meant to be a blog book albeit I may have to pay to get it published in some format and have an offer - but I have been told I should not pay to get published! Ah well.  As a blog book it was discovered that there is a jurisprudential secret in law concerning the opposites, so take note when reading as it is subtle in this blog book.

I also intend to find somewhere to archive my papers: it is not often that a litigant sues top 20 London law firms and one being Professor Richard Susskind OBE, IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice whilst also arguing academically against the Woolf Reforms as Lord Chief Justice - there must be some historical merit in the bundles of documents [15 lever arch files].

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Happy Birthday to me ...

Room 101 

Lord Woolf (as he is American) :
Professor Richard Susskind OBE (as he is corrupt) :
The Lord Chancellor (as he is also an American) :
The English Legal System (as it is legally and morally bankrupt) .

Lord Woolf wants a “regime”, which is liberalisation;
Professor Richard Susskind OBE wants courtroom IT;
The Lord Chancellor wants contemporary, alternative and privatisation;
I want a fair justice system for all, and publically!

Discard Rule 26 and alternative dispute resolution;
Discard anything preliminary or ex parte;
Discard Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Bingham of Cornhill, as part of the solution;
And we will again have equality and democracy.

To hell with my lecturers at Birbeck;
To hell with them again at the LSE;
To hell with the patronage of the EC law course at Kings College;
And now back to reality.

The common good ensures discovery by the wise;
And the knowledge is essential for law students;
No rights are derived from compromise;
This is the current issue concerning Jurisprudence.

So, in all these political nuances;
The separation of the powers is for a reason;
Do just the best “good” that you can and take no chances;
No person is indispensable, above the law, else it is act of Treason.

If you really want to go to heaven you will find;
The universe is the sun, moon and stars operating on the spirit;
Entry is internalisation of sense and pure thought previewed by the mind;
With externalised knowledge of how to observe and study nature and the natural prerequisite.

“Thy Kingdom come” when “thy will be done” is God’s promise;
Equality, fairness, impartiality and justice the highest form of Order;
“On earth as it is in heaven” is God’s will to the wise;
Judgment is the gate, doorway or border.

Of the quest, I anticipate that you will find success;
Law applied, not applied and no law equal progress, digress and regress in function form;
Aristotle establishes the ethical view as degeneracy, reasonableness and excess;
Whilst I re-clarify behaviour jurisprudentially as perverse, reasonable or corrupt as the natural norm.

Uniform application of law leads to social order and is the ideology of the Holy Grail;
Right and wrong are opposites and relative only to cause and effect;
The methodological flaw is alternative dispute resolution which is designed to fail;
As the best legal system does not need to abuse human rights, because of judicial discretion, ‘equity’ and intellect.

Solicitors, barristers and legal academics comprise a profession, educated and trained to a standard of ability inclusive of ethics;
When processed correctly, case marshalling, legal argument, advocacy and cross-examination ensure “independence of the judiciary”;
With filibustering and contempt being seen as despicable dirty tricks;
Which lead to abomination and aberration, corruption and judicial subjectivity.

Justice is done when it is seen to be done;
Via abstract judicial reasoning;
Mind over matter, is substance over form;
With a sprinkling of magical seasoning! 

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Merry Christmas 2016 - have fun

The Artist and the Bumble Bee

One morning in my garden I found
a Bumble Bee lying dead on the ground
I picked him up, studied him, then,
Thought "I will sketch him with my drawing pen,
Next, with a very fine sable brush
Colour in his gorgeous coat of plush".

As I painted this colourful bee
I hoped he lived on in Eternity.
For what would heaven be like, after all,
If there was no place for such creatures small.

Phyllis Jermy (deceased) (My Grandmother)

Look out for Bumble Bees in 2017.  I grow a lavender border just for them and it buzzes away on one side with the bumble bees other favorite a cotoneaster hedge on the other.  In the autumn, I cut the lavender and give it to my sister who makes wonderful presents out of small swatches of fabric stuffing them with lavender.  I am anticipating something nice to hang in my wardrobe as my Christmas present.  Bumble bees most welcome in my small garden.  Merry Christmas folks.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

300 th Post - to recapitulate

I have been sacked twice with devastating effects:

Because Cathy James was "knowingly" incompetent and left a confidential memo in the public network directory [because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - I did], because she has a loud voice which I am supposed to have represented to Anne Glazebrook and it is denied as I have no memory of it and allegations were brought 40 days out of sequence.  I am also alleged to have measured megabytes which I did not do, my colleague Catherine Johnson was so doing because she wanted to show the workload was unevenly distributed in the department and a certain Cathy James was not pulling her weight.

Professor Richard Susskind mismanaged the whole debacle and sacked me, someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong - and which he establishes himself in proceedings at an early date by claiming issues were "unproven" which is a Scottish jurisdiction legality only and issues are based in England.  Both myself and Catherine Johnson were sacked because Professor Richard Susskind did not take the hard decisions necessary for gross bullying by employers as well as issues of favoritism.  Basically Professor Richard Susskind is not a manager and is involved in serious mismanagement.

I sued, only to experience organised crime and corruption.  Professor Susskind did not disclose to the court his 40 man hours of investigation he alleges he did - he did not take the oath.  As such he either perjured himself or did perversion of the course of justice.  He either did not do a 40 man hour investigation as represented to the judge or he did and failed to disclose it deliberately.  But it should have been obvious to the judge that you dont sack someone because someone else has a loud voice! which in any event she does and their witness Louise Fell sat furthest away and represented as much in papers before the court. But the Judge Chairperson De Saxe chose to override 9 pages out of 11 pages of pleading and refused to hear the case.  It had been thought that Professor Susskind was covering for Ms Anne Molyneux who became a Judge on the High Court bench, but it is now known by the words "not proven" he was covering for himself.  By sacking me he hoped to cover up the previous mismanaging activities of Ms Molyneux and Ms Cross and himself in the earlier proceedings which show that Ms Molyneux is not a fit and proper person to be a judge - how did she get past vetting?

The legal issue is called METALIPSIS - the reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause. Where you move away from initial causation of the Cathy James debacle and effect a new cause by transfering away ie effect so as to cause further disruption and reason to sack. Professor Susskind was attempting to transfer me to the float team by a unilateral not bilateral decision and I was sacked for refusing to obey an order of the company, which order was unlawful under contract.  ie you use the effect of an earlier outcome as a new cause to sack. There was therefore an apparent cover up of the earlier proceedings in which Cathy James is causation.

See Louise Christian's of Christian Fisher, lawyers letter to the firm - it if was obvious to her it should have been obvious to Professor Richard Susskind which means there is some deliberacy to his activities - not nice then.

Letter by Louise Christian of Christian Fisher & Co who represented myself and Catherine Johnson and instructed Counsel, Michael Ford. Louise correctly identified a management problem within Masons and told them so thereby establishing KNOWLEDGE(Click here)

My second dismissal was for saying my boss Julian Critchlow was shit amongst other things.  And he was up to nonsense and was contemptible as a manager.  The firm focused on the word shit and nothing else and brought in retrospective rules.  It became clear my employment was not above board, I experienced sex discrimination, professional negligence, breach of contract and personal injury.  I even saved Julian Critchlow's secretary from getting the sack as he was that much of a not nice person.  Again the issue is largely mismanagement which is obvious in pleadings.  I reacted badly to a memo stating my boss was a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory - as he had not given me any work in 2 1/2 years and had no clients that I was aware of this was a fabrication.  It is my human right to use a word contained in the English dictionary. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I meant what I said and was being honest.  I was given a reference which says I am honest with integrity - so why was I sacked = defamation by dismissal.

I sued twice and was given the almighty run around by the courts with Sir Robert Owen QC refusing to deal with organised crime and corruption at all.  Subsequently, I could have appealed but having gone through the system three times, ie the Woolf Reforms system, there appeared to be no point so I wrote to the Lord Chancellor Gove refusing to use the system until  Woolf is overhauled.  I also asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Running alongside this has been the antics of Mr Michael Ford now QC and I appear to have been abused / tortured, albeit I did call him a coward for failing to turn up as a witness concerning case 1 above.   I do wonder what's next as a MO is developed as a stalker.  Anyway, he must have a reason so lets have it.

For what its worth:

I lost my job as a Legal Secretary
I lost my job as a fee earner paralegal
My law degree is damaged by dismissals albeit I scrapped a 2:2 but I am obviously not a 2:2 hence this blog
I have not been able to progress my career in law
I lost a flat in Edinburgh because I could not get work and agencies would not take me on as I had been sacked twice and I did not receive independent advice
I have been made out to be mentally ill when this is disputed or at all
I do not have a relationship with someone I love nor a family
I have endured 23 years of organised crime and corruption since 1993 by the courts and respondents' solicitors
I have not had paid employment for 17 years but do volunteering
My pension is affected by no paid employment
The police will not deal with issues as they arise

All because Cathy James left a confidential memo in the public network directory and her bosses were bullish.  I did not care that Cathy James had a loud voice, I was concerned at her level of incompetence.

Lastly, my dissertation was on the Woolf Reforms which I was rightly concerned about.  My court cases x 3 show the methodology of how they operate such that there is a real need to overhaul the Woolf Reforms.  My blog is street justice.  The Wool Reforms coupled with Professor Susskind's activities amount to an abuse of power and he is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice.  He needs to be given the boot especially as my court papers establish he has suspicious credentials as an IT specialist.  What I did not know until recently is that Professor Susskind is Jewish so also Lord Woolf.  My dissertation and my knowledge via S J Berwin & Co establishes a jewish plot within the English judiciary,  ie an enemy within.  I have seen other writings that the judicial system is being destroyed in England & Wales.

So whilst I have had 23 years of disruption to my life, I have gathered the proof that that disruption is deliberate and the methodology and who is doing it and why.

Also I was proferred 10% of my actual and forecast losses which I turned down via a mediation.  Who, in their right mind, would accept 10% of actual losses.  The whole process was a waste of £1000 and was a scam to only benefit the employer.  However, that the judge on the case did not find 10% of damages is actually quite serious as employers were admitting liability via mediation.  Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with organised crime and corruption on my case when put to him, thereby refusing to deal with half the case.  How did I get a right to a fair trial?  Hence my request to my MP for Parliamentary Sovereignty.

This is my 300th blog post - I don't know if you can do a 301 but please read my blog and if you can kick some ass along Whitehall if you're in a position to do so.  My cases show there also needs to be an umbrella Act for mismanagement covering discrimination as a criminal offence as well as a new category for dismissal cases - defamation by dismissal - in the workforce as I did not sign my contract of employment to experience so much abuse by my employers, their lawyers and the judiciary. The Woolf reforms need to be admitted as a failure hence the need for parliamentary sovereignty concerning my 3 cases.  Noticeably my career on doing an SNC Legal Secretarial certificate all doors were open to me and I gained access to the top flight of law firms in the UK including the top law firm in Scotland.  But on starting my LLB degree in 1993 I have known nothing but abuse with little opportunity and apparently no doors open to me.

On a slightly more tenuous issue Well done Mr Donald Trump on being elected to the post of President.  I concur that NATO needs to be revisisted concerning "collective security" and the preponderance of power in relation to the "perception of threat".  You should only kick in when there is an "actual" threat and I note that Bill Clinton changed the way NATO operated when he was in power.  As such, for the last 25 years, since my exam essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993 I have perceived a threat which I subsequently found out when doing my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in 1997 was sourcing from America via the Jewish community (Shapiro/Clinton).  That perception of threat sourced from the USA undermined the rule of law, is a scam, and has lowered standards around the globe and my court cases are an example of how serious the lowering of standards have been via Woolf Reforms.  We did in the UK, get to savage via the Midstaffs and Francis Report.  Where we are headed is not certain but something has to give or be corrected globally.  Hopefully revisiting NATO, even scrapping it in favour of a Genome project and uniting the disparate of the world, would perhaps be an improvement, ie removing the perception of threat from my perspective anyway. 

So please Mr President, remove Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR/Informal Dispute Settlement -- IDS/informal justice or mediation sometimes known as compromise agreements by outlawing them from the public and private domain or at the very least the public domain because by their very essence and nature the dispute is always removed to the private domain.  Whenever you see ADR/IDS/informal justice or mediation you know that the parties are going to be gagged by a compromise agreement, ie there is going to be a cover up.  You now know what is wrong with American society and how to make America Great Again.



Thursday, October 20, 2016

Refugees at Calais / Airport / Train infrasture - my thoughts

I was pleased to turn on the news tonight and see that finally clearing the camp at Calais is happening with the UK permitting unaccompanied children who have family in the UK to settle in the UK.  This is a significant step in the right direction - but why stop there - take a giant leap of faith and take all 10,000 in the camp.  This would greatly enhance our international standing and restore our faith in humanity which has taken a battering over recent years.  If the Germans can do it ...

I feel sure that Scotland could accommodate a significant number especially over the winter. In the Highlands, the cold would ensure that these people eventually return to their country - not all asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants will want to stay here permanently.  The University of the Highlands and Islands is likely to have places where people can upskill or maintain their skills so that they can return to their countries at a later date if they wished to do so.  And it is important that people go back skilled such as judges, doctors, teachers, plumbers, builders, computer techies etc.

The person who moves a mountain starts by taking away the little stones.   The children are the first step - please keep going.

I now retract my statement that Theresa May is rascist and have to say Well done for starting the process seeing children as just that, now if you can see nurses, teachers, footballers, musicians, shop keepers, mums, dads, uncles, brothers, aunts, sisters, grandparents, disabled etc that would be another small stone moving a mountain.




On airports [and trains] politically should this be EVEL and English only EXCLUSIVE debate on Heathrow/Gatwick third runway or should it be UK level politics and INCLUSIVE debate from all MPs.

I throw this into the ring because Scotland needs to develop Prestwick Airport and there are probably other airports around the country that need to be developed as a priority over a third runway at Heathrow or Gatwick which may mean that that runway is no longer necessary.  If for example Prestwick was developed then traffic could come the otherway from the North of England and North of Scotland.  Other airports around Scotland probably need developed further.

London has Stansted, City, Gatwick and Heathrow and the Channel Tunnel as well as Luton airports. Why would anyone going London to Paris not use the Chunnel as there is little point in lugging a suitcase out to a London based airport and lugging it into Paris from Charles De Gaulle when you can go door to door by train.  So maybe greater use of all 5 airports is necessary rather than another runway especially if domestic traffic does not need to go through Gatwick or Heathrow at all.

For example, I went to a Human Rights Conference in Berlin in 2008.  I flew Germanwings (excellent by the way) from Edinburgh to Cologne to Berlin as a return ticket which cost £140.  Another person attended the Conference from Edinburgh as well and he flew Easyjet: Edinburgh to Geneva to Berlin for £25 - I  don't know if that was return.

Under no circumstances did it make sense flying from Scotland to Europe to use Heathrow or Gatwick and that is probably true of most domestic flights to Europe.

Up here in the Highlands we now have a Heathrow link, but we also now have a Schipol link via Inverness airport.  So it probably does not make much sense to fly through Gatwick or Heathrow other than for an international flight and probably nearer airports such as Manchester or Birmingham or even Glasgow would be a preferred option.

Which brings me to Donald Trump and Prestwick Airport.  He has rightly pointed out why would he fly into Heathrow when he can fly to Prestwick.  This makes the case for this airports strategic development as an international airport for Scotland that would stop the need for traffic to 5 London airports including Gatwick and Heathrow from Scotland or almost.

This then makes it significant that a UK airport strategy is necessary looking at domestic and international flights in order to justify - even on environmental grounds - a third runway, when smaller airports need to be developed in preference to or first in time.  An airport strategy might mean you don't need a third runway at Gatwick or Heathrow at all, but you still need to develop airports across the whole of the UK.

In the Islands the cost of getting from the Island to Aberdeen, Inverness or Edinburgh Glasgow on top of a domestic flight probably needs to be looked at as well as in Cornwall, Devon, Brighton and even Norwich.  By developing smaller airports per head of the population you would be taking cars off the road as congestion around Gatwick (a route I know about) is horrendous when going to Brighton from London and return.

Maybe a survey of incoming and outgoing passengers from Luton, City, Standsted, Gatwick and Heathrow and the Chunnel needs to be done to find out where people are travelling from or going to in the UK - it might be an eye-opener to show two things (a) the congestion on roads and environmental impact and (b) that airport development needs to occur at smaller nearer the passengers travel destinations to actually take congestion off Gatwick and Heathrow.  You need to make the case why would you fly Gatwick or Heathrow or any of the other London serving airports? especially given my Berlin example above.

Its not all about the flight path noise and homes.

The question is Gatwick or Heathrow a necessary improvement to airport infrastructure or at all?

Lastly, holiday brochures could usefully be specific to the local airports.  For example some brochures fly Gatwick and Heathrow perhaps Manchester and maybe Glasgow but not Inverness or Aberdeen or Prestwick.  If I am starting my journey from Inverness then I am going to use the local or nearest airport rather than Gatwick or Heathrow - that Berlin example again.  Why are UK holiday brochures wasting paper telling me about flights in Gatwick and Heathrow when they should be telling me flights from Scotland if not Inverness.  Similarly people in Cornwall presumably have the same problem or they go Gatwick or Heathrow!


Trains - I was opposed to HS2 as a transport scheme again because I think it is a UK inclusive issue - do we really need it.  I have spoken to a couple of MPs, MSPs and some green activists recently at a hustings earlier in the year and have changed my mind somewhat - yes it is a good idea.

But first I would like to see a transport policy that looks at our 18th, 19th and 20th century train infrastructure and superimpose on top of it a 21st century infrastructure.  This could mean tweaking a bit of track hear, linking another bit of track there, removing a link somewhere else first before doing HS2.  This would mean smaller projects taking 10, 20, 30, 45, 1 hour off journey times just by using 21st Century technology.

For example, a person suggested to Nicola Sturgeon at a hustings a year or so ago, that there is a need for a 22 mile piece of track from Fort William to Dalwhinnie which would connect the north west of Scotland to Inverness and to Glasgow or Edinburgh to London.  All that was needed was 22 miles of track - where in the grand scheme of things is that going to happen.  From Fort William they could do infrastructure to Ullapool to Bettyhill to Thurso and link back down to Inverness via Wick.  The chances of that ever happening is probably zilch.  But 22 miles of track is a possibility.  A lot of traffic would come off the road and tourism would receive a huge benefit.  There is definately a case to be made.  But I am wondering how many other rural areas just need a wee bit of track as a link from A to B to C and that could shave off 30 minutes of journey time or indeed 2 hours re Dalwhinnie to Fort William by road as an example.

So whilst I do consider HS2 is necessary - I would not necessarily start HS2 at London, but more northerly and cut journey times.

The reason why I was opposed to HS2 was because I could not see a reason why Scottish people would use it to go to Heathrow when they can fly.  I could not make the case for it, but Scottish money will presumably go into the project.  Further I thought taking lorries off the road as haulage and sending them by sea down the Ports would be a better option, but I now consider upgrading the train transport system would effectively do the same thing.  It was even put to me that dualling the Inverness Perth line would be a good idea, but a train can only be on one piece of track at anyone time - so it would be a good idea but not necessary.  Sending trains down the track at night would be a good idea and this probably happens already.

So whilst I  am happy to see HS2 go ahead, I would prefer the Government to do a proper transport all encompassing with bells and whistles train survey and transpose a 21st century map on our old infrastructure to see if a tweak here and there could not achieve the same result of 30 minutes lobbed off a train journey first.  I would also like to see all of the UK surveyed as a train infrastrure project and money allotted accordingly.  It should not all be about the south.


I am hoping they sorted out the issues with Hinchley Point and the need to do due diligence properly.


On Donald Trump and his golf course problems - have a round of golf with the local Mens Shed.  On going round the course, every time you see the Windmills think what about some trees or a statute or a tea or wee dram hut or pavillion/folly with a pot of environmental questions in it to discuss everything but the windmills as a pitstop.  Might make for an interesting round of golf and you might learn something, ie block out the view if you dont like it by supplanting another view rather than antagonise the locals,


To round off - Theresa May is doing really rather well at the moment - well done.

Thursday, July 07, 2016


I saw the news late last night on the Chilcot Report. I have no doubt the report was a good report and have not read it yet. But I am still of the view that the Iraq War was a "decoy" war: the invasion having taken place in the English legal system using a Japanese concept modified by American Jews. Tony Blair ex-PM was notified of this in 2000, but also I was lobbying the Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine of Lairg prior to that time, and my knowledge was known by Dr Lindsay Farmer ex-Birbeck College, University of London as early as 1993 concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution. You have evidential documents elsewhere on my blog.

Tony Blair claims he can look people in the eye, he was not deceitful or misleading etc etc: I ask what about Malcolm Kendell Smith, the conscientious objector who went to prison. What about the millions of people who lobbied government informally and formally - I was "snowdrop" on the Channel 4 Chat Thread as well as later going under my own name. I feel completely ignored and lately I appear to be a political prisoner on a mental health ward when not actually being mentally ill - I am supposed to be deluded about the Woolf Reforms and a Mr Michael Ford and Professor Richard Susskind OBE. An issue of delusion is cured by "knowledge" not "clinical need". I am not deluded and never have been, have always disputed my diagnosis and refused to take medication willingly, always under protest. I have had my right to freedom of expression removed from time to time, I have had what appears to be gynocological treatment without my concent possibly using nano technology - which could fall within the realm of torture albeit I have benefited from the process. My right to life has been impacted as I have not had a personal family life other than through extended family and I am socially engineered into poverty whilst being highly talented and skilled: I cannot get a job but I do keep applying. I consider I am currently under surveillance and have been for the past year or so and I know who but cannot prove it: I have been hacked several times including intellectual espionage, I have had trespass, been poisoned via my toothbrush - yes the same MO (elsewhere on blog), my clothes have been dyed yellow and my shoes, slippers and wellingtons have been damaged. I cannot get a judge or lawyer to act on my issues and my current lawyer is doing her advice rather than my instructions - with I can't I can't I can't even "your not rational" when I am one of the highest minds in the country in law at this time. My previous lawyer stitched me up doing her advice rather than my instructions and had to come off the record when presented with a 30 point email on issues to which she was genuinely upset and shocked. I have notified my MP and MSP's that SLAB lawyers are refusing to take on client work in the Inverness area concerning me. My MP is also having to deal with a welfare benefits issue which is potentially fraudulent via the DWP not me and if I am correct then my medical records are falsified too. The hole that is being dug, and they are still digging, is getting deeper. So if you don't mind, and I don't mind, I would appreciate it if you would read my blog and the document attachments - there is little point in stealing from me because by now they should have appreciated that I put a spot light on the issues - as they say ... let there be light.

To my horror a BBC Journalist/Correspondent on BBC News 24 "Papers" was unhappy about some material in the public domain and said so the other night. I don't know what he was referring to substantively BUT in the current climate of Alternative Dispute Resolution / Informal Dispute Settlement / informal justice / mediation and compromise agreements - journalists should be grateful for any material that falls into the public domain - carpe diem. ADR/IDS/IJ/Mediation and compromise agreements AUTOMATICALLY identify a cover up.

China appears to me to put out the press that they want to be known and that is it: we are supposed to have freedom of the press - yet under Blair we had spin, spin, spin. So the press are just as responsible and accountable for Iraq and if I am correct the "decoy" issue - Woolf Reforms - where was the press intervention on my research issues - I did write four articles for Frances Gibb at the Times, but went unpublished. The Times have been happy to publish a Susskind column, happy to publish Professor Hazel Genn who "concocted" the Woolf Reforms at the University College, London - whilst I was next door at Birbeck College doing my dissertation for Professor Nicola Lacey and Dr Lindsay Farmer. The press gave Woolf maximum coverage, Derry Irvine of Lairg and also some to Lord Mackay of Clashfern - but why not Miss Lesley Diane McDade. Kamlesh Bahl and Jane Betts even managed to get a news blackout. The only person that I recall being published anti-Woolf was David Pannick QC, now Lord Pannick and he was anti-skeleton arguments and he was right - check out my skeleton arguments and then look at the judgments! My three court cases and my research material have been largely covered up - Woolf was processed without any press checks of any significance - the judiciary and legal profession were intellectually "knocked over" as a pillar, then the press pillar - spin; then the Defence pillar - Iraq; then the banking pillar and then mass youth unemployment ... where do you think we were headed logically, intellectually or just plain guessing.

Standards have lowered and are lowering still - I can't even get a lawyer to do simple human rights or get a Scottish Legal Aid Board solicitor to practise in my area concerning my issues - where did they get the right not to take on a client for any area of SLAB work - the only reason you should be able to turn a SLAB client away is "conflict of interest". When you do have a SLAB lawyer - who claims to be "out of jurisdiction" for certain SLAB work - "use local SLAB solicitor" she said and the service is so poor she wont do your instruction but forces you to do her "advice" which you are not obliged to take - it better work.

So back to Chilcot - his report started at 2001 and specifically excluded my material which was 2000. That does not mean to say he did not have my material - he did - and that also does not follow that Blair is off the hook. Just saying - as the War in Iraq is deemed "unjust". It naturally follows "misconduct in public office" is an offence that is applicable. There is an "enemy within" - Jewish plot and it sourced from America using a Japanese concept which was modified. If you compromise your rights, then soon you will have few or none. I have asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty - a very large cheque would be nice too.

Just saying further Hilary Clinton has been in office for 20 years or more, ie she has never been out of office. I have also been oppressed, suppressed and repressed for 20 plus years - not quite. Just so that you can see I am impartial on American politics - maybe, sort of, getting there ...   Donald Trump is doing "distraction" politics - he says look at the Hispianics and you do - look at that ugly woman  and you look; don't let the Muslims in - spotlight all Muslims.  He has done more for minorities than anyone.  However, I perceive Bill Clinton and Monica - the scandal - did just as much distraction politics as anything - and ADR got in globally - like you all noticed.   So what has Donald really been getting up to ...  well he did highlight Prestwick Airport over Heathrow Airport for the Scots - you know it makes sense so give him credit where its due - here's a credit - when you next manage to get a round of golf with "The Donald" in Scotland - stop to spot the windmills, and, everytime you see them say what about this tree species or that statue or that we hut for a dram and if you put a pot of environmental questions beside the wee dram, you might learn something, you didn't know - do golfers only talk about golf! Problem solved.   Let there be light.

On Brexit - I voted "out", but fully appreciate the Scottish vote was to stay in.  I am now supporting Leadsom as I do not consider May has the qualities necessary to be a prime minister as she does not come across as a people person, especially concerning migrants.  Also I don't consider she is correct about the nuclear option - this is twentieth century thinking.  We are in the 21st Century and we need to think and act like it - there is another option available - international cyber centre at Faslane with a court dealing with international matters such as hacking and intellectual espionage, banking, data protection, one-stop software legal jurisdiction, robotics, artificial intelligence, gaming to name a few.  In the next ten years cyber is going to take off and that is where we as a country need to be - at the forefront.  Nuclear is a burden, we need "cyber" to be processed as a "benefit".  Theresa May is not even in the mindset for the 20th Century let alone the 21st.  Leadsom voted out, so the race should be between Gove and Leadsom now: if you think otherwise then you need to pull your socks up and wise up.

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder what Malcolm Kendell Smith has to say ... presumably he needs an apology ...

Friday, June 24, 2016

BREXIT and the Scots - what could we possibly do on merit

My blog appears to be hacked by someone in Afghanistan - could you get lost.

I was going to upload my thoughts on Brexit as follows: we deserved the outcome as we are not a democratic country in the UK and Europe - we know why - you cannot get Justice or Access to Justice but instead compromise of our rights. Plus Labour needs to deal with Tony Blair ex-PM - unjust war = misconduct in public office - noticeably there has been a consultation paper out on this offence at the moment - why? I put in a substantive Late response.

Anyway, my thoughts on the Scots outcome of Brexit -

Firstly, our history shows that we could utilise "implication". The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 "implied" a bill of rights on the English, ie that you would not meddle in Scots religion, education or laws. This argument could be used concerning the current debacle as a consequence of brexit and the Scots position. We are already in Europe and have voted to remain therefore ... by implication we are European as we have never left the EU. Could this assist us to get an "express/implied amendment to article 50" rather than an "express out and referendum on independence" would it be quicker than another referendum. Even although they are trying to use the "express" terms and conditions of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, does this afford any merit if we use "implied" terms and conditions, especially where there is mutual trust and confidence in Europe by the Scots.

Secondly, an argument could be that article 6 of the Treaty of Rome (or is it Amsterdam) is prima facia known as the "loyalty clause" and this clause trumps article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon - is there merit in this argument. Thirdly, could we use an article 177 preliminary reference which became article 234 preliminary reference and mayhave changed further to send a question via the domestic courts of Scotland to the EU on the above two points, which would then be sent back by way an answer (or any other relevant question) to be interpreted into Scots law. Thinking out loud - keep your own Counsel and do your own research.

Oh well - perhaps the Police can now look into my claims made over many many years that I am being subjected to organised crime and corruption at the top of the English judiciary and academia - "believed" to be Professor Richard Susskind OBE as he is clever but not intelligent and as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice: is sophisticated enough to do the hacking, surveillance, intrusion, with others including trespass, assault, poisoning etc - you can throw the criminal legal book at him including treason along with his side kick Woolf/Lairg/McKay/Blair/Genn, perverting the course of justice or perjury Molyneux/Cross/James/Biggs and others. Dr Farmer and Dr Ford appear up to no good either with others - anyway someone is hacking so in order to prevent intellectual espionage I upload to my blog.

Would welcome feedback"

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Virtual Court

Hi there.  I uploaded my court case against Masons many years ago on File Save but unfortunately the host closed down.  I was probably one of the first to do a virtual court by uploading public domain documents known as the "pleadings bundle" on to a blog after the fact.  Anyway, the last 6 months have been upsetting for me as I have been consistently hacked and assaulted.  I am currently socially engineered into mental health services but am NOT actually mentally ill, although I have been forced to take medication against my will.  I do now have a solicitor on the case, but the first solicitor I had stitched me up such that I have two article 6 human rights abuse issues as well as a right to liberty issue and right not to be tortured.  Anyway, I know who is doing the issues, I just have some difficulty in proving it.

That said, I don't have any difficulty proving that a perversion of the course of justice occurred on the Masons case - check out the EAT Decision by HHJ Morison - there is no case precedent in the judgment - yet one was read verbatim to him and five existed in the appeal pleading document and several were contained in the skeleton (which you don't currently have) because my computer has been hacked.  If for any reason you would like to see any documents then let me know as they are all public domain material having passed through a "discovery" process which includes evidence bundles x 2.  Email is the best way to contact me.

The upshot is that some may perceive they have got away with criminality including misconduct in public office possibly because there is or was a 16 year rule on criminal offences in England anyway - but my LLB law degree is a bit out of date (1997) so things may have moved on somewhat .... and they did.  I also sued S J Berwin & Co, lawyers and others TWICE: did you know you can have a one sided sex discrimination case - chase me for evidence if you like!  Its called organised crime and corruption.  But here's the rub, the third litigation placed all of the Masons documents and the documents in the second litigation into the DISCOVERY BUNDLE - all 15 lever arch files - and the hearing before Sir Robert Owen QC which was also corrupt and contrary to article 6 of the HRA 1998 was heard in February 2014.  - kinda knocks the 16 year rule on the head as it is now active again - all 3 litigations - hence the request for Parliamentary Sovreignty and a public inquiry and APPEAL when the Woolf Reforms are removed from the English & Welsh judicial system - my cases do the practical to my research via my dissertation, ie theory for which I received a 2:1, ie that the judicial system of England & Wales is wrecked.

So, I will upload some documents today on the Masons pleading and possibly another day on the S J Berwin & Co pleadings x 2.  As such you are on notice that Professor Richard Susskind OBE is an utter bastard and involved in criminality - organised crime, concerted and orchestrated practices and so far he has got away with it because he is a British spy: like I give a damn when he is an "enemy within" - see also my research on the Woolf Reforms - another "enemy within".  Both are located at the level of the Lord Chief Justice, one as IT adviser - hence potentially sophisticated enough to hack my computer, but not knowledgeable enough to know how to measure megabytes one of the allegiations against me, such that the system does it for itself - how did he get the job of IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice when bringing false allegations against me - organised crime and corruption is how - misconduct in public office with people presuming that because he is a Professor that he actually is intelligent - not - according to my evidence bundle.  At all material time he could have settled out of court - he did not and therefore the firm of Masons, and possibly its merged Pinsent Masons are JOINTLY liable under the old Partnership Act and should really be shut down for criminality - you may be wondering why not call the Police - did that many times - they still have not caught the buggers - BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY CANNOT READ.  Still live in hope - lots of uploaded documents coming up.

When it started to go wrong - 1993 Bullying instance with Carmela Inguanta (Click here)

Removal of the warning given for making a complaint about bullying in Anne Molyneux's Department (Click here)

Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross allegations - there having another go - serious mismanagement (Click here)

Hearing in 1995 with Michael Ford, barrister( Mr Michael Ford Barrister is a riveting read, truly on form doing "softly softly" when his instruction was "heads on plates" and must have been delighted he won such that he failed to attend the IT as a witness when MOST necessary, whilst informing that (a) Respondents go first and (b) they will only deal with the case from the point of transfer establishing that he had a reason why he was not turning up - one hopes not little brown envelopes as I am still waiting for the reason! especially as the Bar Complaints are not an easy read relating to evasion - see organised crime and corruption post in November 2015 concerning barristers activities x 3).

Appeal hearing 1995 - NB Anne Molyneux should not have been able to become a Judge if the Law Society and Police had vetted properly - judges are unelected so who nominated her: likewise how did Richard Susskind become IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice without organised crime and corruption by way of concealment of the last 5 documents

This is what its all about apparently - CONFIDENTIAL MEMO (Click here)

Cannot locate an electronic copy of the Affidavit which is a bit bizarre.

Richard Susskind Transcript otherwise known as "METALIPISIS - the reversal of cause and effect - I am still waiting to see the 40 man hour investigation material - perhaps the Police would like to see it too - why not sack CATHY "Knowingly incompetent", why attempt to transfer me unlawfully

Richard Susskind Witness Statement

Pleading prepared by Rolf Stein of Pannone Pritchard Englefield (Click here)

Respondent's [for Masons - Bruce Carr of Devereux Chambers] Submissions (Click here)

Industrial Tribunal Judgment - this is being covered up and is organised crime and corruption (Click here)

Employment Appeal Tribunal (Click here)

The Skeleton Argument(Click here)Notice the skeleton and Appeal document has cited case precedent, one of which London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman ratio decidendi was read verbatim to the court on insistance by me and therefore should be located in the judgment: issue organised crime and corruption made out - see next document and Lawtel. Also bear in mind that the Woolf Reforms are not enacted until the Access to Justice Act 1999 - so why am I being subjected to them - see Lawtel Judge Peter Clarke.

Judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Morison (Click here)

Lawtel of EAT Decision (Click here)

Applicant pleading to Court of Appeal [before Gibson/Mance] (Click here)

Court of Appeal Mechanical and Engineers Transcript of hearing before Mr Justice Gibson and Mr Justice Mance (Click here)

Petition to the House of Lords (Click here)

Cashed Cheque (Click here) - this may be a constitutional issue concerniing tradition that a Queen (of at least Scotland) has to provide equality to her subjects to hold the Crown.  By the cashing of this cheque I should have received equality but did not do so - see further documents below.

Listing Prayers of the House of Lords -TWICE - Bishop of Derby and Bishop of Birmingham (Click here)

House of Lords Dismissal of the Petition [Respondent's [Siobhan Cross wrote a letter to the court - not held electronically at moment] (Click here)

Lane v Esdaile used as blocking case precedent which is 100 years old.  However, Woolf Reforms implemented which makes this case obsolete as Woolf Reforms premised on "Access to Justice" and Justice.  Cheque was cashed on the premis of "Access to Justice" even without leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.  The issue was perversion of the course of justice by the EAT decision

Name of the Judges sitting in the House of Lords on the case (Click here) - Lord Hope of Craighead (who failed to disclose a conflict of interest via the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists and RS) and Lord Slynn of Hadley (who may have had a conflict of interest via Kings College, London and RS) and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - no apparent issues.

Note the methodology and timing of documents: the Woolf Reforms were not enacted until the Access to Justice Act came into being in 1999. So why was I subjected to (a) skeleton argument - see Lawtel and judgment of HHJ Morison on Appeal which was incidentally an ex parte preliminary hearing (not an APPEAL) establishing corruption as certain on the case; and (b) note the "application hearing" rather than an appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal stages - these I argue are "Access from Justice" as they remove the case from the correct path of Access TO Justice, ie the appeal process. You do not get leave to appeal from an application hearing, but as Woolf was implemented and made Lane v Esdail, ie blocking case law obsolete, there was no need for leave to appeal as access to justice is presumed by the Act per se. It is quite clear the case is essentially criminal and a perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office is occurring involving the judiciary for a reason - that Professor Richard Susskind is covering up by concealment (with the collusion and conspiracy of the Industrial Tribunal who overruled 9 pages of an 11 page pleading) the first disciplinary hearing re the 3 gross misconduct allegations for the benefit or sole benefit of Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, lawyers and one now a judge (AM), but because he himself took part evidentially in proceedings at an earlier date than his own disciplinary hearing and the issue is made out because allegation C was "not proven", thereby identifying a person who is Scottish and out of jurisdiction in England, ie himself. This then meant that all my evidence and witnesses were relevant as my case was prepared from the point of causation - all 11 pages of pleading as prepared by my solicitor Rolf Stein, ie Cathy James leaving the confidential memo in the public network directory and Susskind was actually perverting the course of justice on three grounds (a) misrepresenting the nature of my employment and contractual status and (b) averring the issue was a management decision rather than contractual and unlawful as it came about as a consequence of serious mismanagement and defamation and (c) concealing events and evidence for his own benefit - how did he become IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice when bringing false allegations concerning myself related to IT and also concerning two lawyers who had IT ornaments on their desks in an apparently computer specialist law firm - not. Measuring megabytes - yes I do know how to do this BUT did not do it - the system does it for you - you hover your mouse over the document or folder and it tells you automatically how much megabytes its used - this allegation was for gross misconduct against me and is impossible. Further the other two allegations relate to Anne Glazebrook and alleged representations which I know nothing about BUT those allegations are substantively impossible too and we are not doing Canon law here, ie Scots jurisdiction again. The confidential document was NOT confidential located in the public network directory. Saying Cathy James has a loud voice when she does have a loud voice is impossible too - but so far as I am aware I have not had a conversation with Anne Glazebrook about these allegations, there is also a high probability that I would not have had these conversations as I spoke to her 3 times in 6 months, and there are issues of timing - when did I allegedly have these conversations as there are only two possibilities (via deductive reasoning) (and it is admitted I had conversations on both these occasions with Catherine Johnson - so what!) as very narrow windows of opportunity that I cannot timeously account for in a week's activity as I specifically recall the week as my boss Brian Gegg was getting married, meaning I was busting a gut to get the work done by the Wednesday leaving me to work for my other boss Stuart Smith Thurs Friday and his workload was three Scott Schedules, ie A3 detailed documents: I did also have a conversation with a fee earner in her room on the day in question and did not disclose any details she told me to anyone, nor disclose to her any information I had - I am not known to be a gossip, drama queen, backstabbing little bitch - like Cathy. The allegations therefore remain denied until Anne Glazebrook can substantiate them preferrably in a witness statement rather than second hand knowledge via Siobhan Cross and Andrew Blunderfield who was Catherine Johnson's boss. I don't recall ever having a conversation with Andrew Blunderfield but Anne Glazebrook was never out of his room gossiping - but not to me - I was always TOO BUSY. Further even if it was proved that I did have the conversations - so what - its not gross misconduct. It is gross misconduct by Cathy James however. So the criminal issues are (a) perversion of the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office [noticeably the Government is currently engaged in a consultation process concerning the misconduct in public office offence - I have put in a substantive Late Response to this consultation and will probably do so again if it goes to the Lords - should be available for freedom of information requests as I did state it could be made public!

The Affidavit by myself and letter re case marshalling and witness statements of Catherine Johnson, John McDade, Chloe Miranda (who was also sacked on a previous occasion by Anne Molyneux using the transfer/sack methodology for having done nothing wrong but showed Cathy James up as "knowingly incompetent") for the Claimant and Mike Orton (HR) and Tony Bunch (Managing Partner) for Respondents are not available online at the moment as some pdf and tiff documents my hackers corrupted and some are not held electronically - that does not mean you cannot have the information, I will just have to scan or rescan it. Just ask if you need the info - it is implied that the recent hackers were not in a position to ask for the information or more to the point an abuse of power was occurring. There are two lever arch files of evidence in existence by me (and 40 man hour of information missing DELIBERATELY by Respondents)

You already have a post in November on this blog with documents under the heading organised crime and corruption - see index of content list on the right hand side of the blog - but I do have some information of relevance relating to the Law Society complaints which were corrupted and may have involved Kamlesh Bahl and her solicitor Jill Andrews ex-colleague at Masons to Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross and Professor Susskind and the failure of my case worker Jane Betts to process the complaints properly due to an alleged bullying allegation at the Law Society reported in "The Times" and which was subject to a news blackout. Apparently my complaints x 29 were flooded - but when they went to the Ombudsman there was no mention of flooded documents!

If you can check out the CPR Rules of Court - known as the procedural rules. Then check the CPR Rules against today's court rules. You might have some difficulty locating the word "equality" in there, impartiality appears to relate only to expert witnesses; fairness - nope article 6 of the Human Rights Act is not located in them either - so if you find you can't get justice then don't be surprised. You can find proportionality, expediency is there because believe it or not there is a fast track and multi track facility, and there is economy in costs and court fees - it does not actually cost too much to litigate if you do it yourself - and a court system should not be so difficult to use that the ordinary "reasonable man" in the street can't use it. Then there is mediation/ADR/IDS/Informal Justice - how not to use the system - makes a lot of sense not - why compromise your rights - if you actually believe you have any in our not-democracy-at-the-moment in the UK and European systems (I think you might need to check the Scottish and rest of Europe bearing in mind I was the only person arguing for the "competition model" in the Directive on Mediation at the Subsidiary principle via Arlene McCathy MEP! And I did not get the competition model through! the coercive regime model got in). For what its worth the judges should be inclusive in the issue of equality, fairness, impartiality and justice - if they are not how then are they supposed to be independent. Sir Richard Owen QC heard my last case in February 2014 he refused to deal with organised corruption as pleaded and evidence in the bundles before him - you have the information above at EAT Appeal, Skeleton, HHJ Morison judgment and Lawtel - what do you decide? Over the years the corruption and organised crime have been reported to Rotherhithe, Southwark, Polwarth, Bow, Manchester, Fettes, Leith, St Leonards, and laterly Inverness even via Facebook - the police will put me in a mental health hospital when I am not actually mentally ill rather than deal with the issues. This is quite a serious issue because the Police even if I was mentally ill should deal with organised corruption affecting mentally ill people - they should not be able to not deal with criminality on the premis of mentally ill health. But it is because I am not mentally ill that they appear to not being capable of processing organised crime and corruption - another round of Facebook maybe! I do consider I am under surveillance though and what a lovely life I have too : excellent music taste and the parties - family ones - are they on a fishing expedition or something - when it is handed to them on a plate. Well Susskind wants courtroom IT - he has probably snaffled how to do it for free already ...

"Happy" yet, Richard!

The Shenanigans continue ... S J Berwin & Others sometime soon aka known as the "Shit cases" (have located most of the documents now but there is a lot so will take some time to decide what to upload.

This is the Originating Application of the Claimant (me) in the Sex Discrimination case against S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, David Harrell and Keith Wood Check out the date - the Human Rights Act is enacted. Freedom of expression has never been argued but I do consider that you will find that using a word contained in the Oxford English Dictionary - even if it is "shit" does not necessarily make it a swear word. There are 4 dictionary meanings - two of which are relevant - contemptible person and nonsense. You have the performance figures on the November blog post. I will post some further documents but there are over 20 pleading documents on this case just at the ET, there are more on the EAT and CA so maybe I wont post all of them. Notice in the Masons case, I just sued the firm, this time I also named people on the writ - important evidentially as David Harrell and Ian Insley did not do witness statements or appear in court I believe claiming they were the firm. Also, an issue is that retrospective rules were being used to sack me but this will show up in later documents and evidence.

Notice of Appearance of the Respondents - note it is just a flat denial of everything - there are 500 pieces of evidence including the fact that I was given a fee earner code and charge out rate and also a secretary I am just going to schedule up the documents of the ET and EAT in the first S J Berwin & Co and others case - there are approx 40 documents which you can click on and read for yourself - they are collectively known as "the pleadings". You will also note the dates of documents - the Woolf Reforms are supposed to be implemented - so not multi-track or fast-track then. Jurisprudentially a lot of these procedural documents are absolutely not necessary to the progression of the case to substantive trial - therefor if a "virtual court" in the future were to be seen to be reasonable in the pursuit of justice, a virtual court process could easily simplify the procedural rules, prevent the procedural nonsense and also ensure automatic contempt of court orders are given where there is non or minimal compliance - potentially as fines, any money raised could go to the Legal Aid budget or Pro Bono or Citizen Advice Bureau's court service. My virtual court is documents scanned as .tiff or .pdf or .word. I am using google cloud and it has a useful feature to allow editing or not to allow editing of documents - I have switched editing off. The system is then logged onto my google blogger and there is a small bit of code which you can edit to let people know what the document is rather than just leave it as code - its not difficult. As litigation is public domain, there is no reason why the whole case - pleading and evidence cannot be uploaded as any court case should be subject to freedom of information requests. As for Data Protection - maybe folks should be a lot nice to their staff or each other to prevent causative issues in the first place - I did not deserve to be treated in this manner by this firm or my previous employer - that the courts have promulgated the issues and the police failed to act when there is a duty to act and objectively not subjectively, as well as other ancillary agencies to law, is why you can read my documents. I have been defamed by two dismissals and I have experienced serious mismanagement - both these items need to be incorporated into employment law, ie unfair, wrongful, constructive and defamatory dismissal. Whistleblowing is not sufficient herein these cases and a litigation process is jurisprudentially meant to be and inherent within its essence a whistleblowing mechanism. Incorporating the Swiss criminal mismanagement construct as see in the Fifa example could also usefully be brought into UK law. The courts do not want flood gates, ambulance chasing and class actions if they can help it, they don't want a need for increased litigation, yet they fail to appreciate that mediation compromises peoples rights, rights which set standards in society when upheld. Well the standards are non-existent in my three litigated cases and now you can see why. There will always be disputes some of which are fundamentally necessary to society as Justice and as democracy and the ability for people to be equal. I am not experiencing "inequality" by litigating, I am experiencing "unequal": I have played a fair game throughout and that should be obvious to you. The Law Society is not regulating effectively or at all - but they will do so as a consequence of this blog. So it will be interesting to see the outcome as they have not as yet asked me for the paperwork, but then maybe Respondents or others will be supplying the same. Nor have I been told of any process that I am required to participate in - so maybe I dont. I have also now liaised with my MP, he has clarified that my research area and request of my previous MP is something for my MEP to deal. I am still requiring Parliamentary Sovereignty and an Appeal - you don't get to this stage lightly and I have been litigating 3 cases for 22 years including lobbying my research area - so perhaps substantive "virtual courts" are now necessary so that the light of day can shine on abuse and nonsense and the need to protect vulnerable people as a 21st Century court system - it is not sufficient to electronically be able to download court procedural documents, fill in the blanks, it is necessary for the documents to be substantive and to be seen - in that regard justice is done when she is seen to be done which is supposed to be a universal norm. We have 18th century systems being upgraded to 18th century systems with a 21st century hook - but they are not adequate or sufficient. Some people want to prevent litigation or arbitration I don't - it is healthy for a society to have disputes and there will always be disputes - it is how you deal with them that is important: I say, in two ways - those cases that reiterate the rule of law - they should be abundent and processed a bit like insurance claims and loss adjusters. If this then this - law is this. Then there are cases that "challenge" what the law is - these are the MOST necessary to democracy, justice is therefore the ability to reason at the highest minds and ability in law to promulgate society especially as statute can go out of date - sometimes to the 18th century or earlier and common law needs to be brought up to date in which case codification exercises are necessary. Also our laws determine who we are: we should not be over-regulated and our criminal law should not be criminalising people to the detriment of other public services. I am lobbying the misconduct in public office offence at the moment and put in a late response. I reasonably do not consider this offence should be a prisonable offence, but I do reasonably consider that this offence should be a fine with some community payback and asset stripped for unjust enrichment at the expense of someone under the Proceeds of Crime Act but that the fine should be the equivalent of going to prison. So as far as I am aware it costs £30,000 in Scotland or £45,000 in England to send someone to prison for a year. Currently the penalty for misconduct in public office is up to 18 years in prison depending on sentencing and severity of issues. A fine could reasonably be millions - this would have an automatic deterrent effect, the money raised could go to for instance Legal Aid Fund, Pro Bono and Citizens Advice Bureau. I rather suspect that the focus on this offence by way of consultation is to enable Tony Blair to evade the consequences of the Iraq War or for Professor Susskind and a few judges to evade being held accountable. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Consultation - doctrines of equity - first in time prevails; in the interests of justice - I asked for this offence to be considered by the Police and in legal documentation in the late 1990's - is the outcome of the consultation going to be retrospective.

Review of Facts Letter 1999-09-02
Review Decision 1999-09-13
Request for Further and Better Particulars 1999-09-20
Court Corres Order for Directions 1999-09-26
Appeal 1999-09-29
Respondents response to Notice of Appeal 2000-03-22
Applicant's Final Submissions 2000-03-27
Amended Order and Order Miss Selio 2000-04-10
Respondents letter to Appeal 2000-04-18
Response to Respondents letter of appeal 2000-04-28
Notice of Appeal hearing for Respondents 2000-05-15
Order of Mr Justice Lindsay 2000-07-26
Employment Appeal Tribunal to Applicant Prelimiinary hearing 2000-09-26
Manuscript Note of Hearing before Judge Sigsworth 2001-03-16
Answers to Further and Better Particulars 2001-03-28
Schedule of Documents 2001-04-03
Notice of Hearing 2001-04-06
Hearing update Further and Better Particulars 2001-06-27
Letter re Notice of Appearance 2001-07-23
Order to attend Khalid Nasir 2001-07-24
Witness Statement Ffion Griffiths for Respondents 2001-07-24
Witness Statement Julian Critchlow for Respondents 2001-07-30
Notification of time and date of resumed hearing 2001-08-03
Notification of Change of Solicitor 2001-08-06
Witness Statement Keith Wood for Respondents 2001-09-11
? 2001-11-05
Burden of Proof 2001-11-05
Submission by Respondents indirect discrimination burden 2001-11-05
Comments on Respondents Burden of Proof 2001-11-12
Respondents Reply to Submissions 2001-11-13
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 1-5 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 6-10 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 11-16 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 17-22 2002-07-30
Review of Facts 2002-08-10
Decision on Application for Review 2002-08-19
Submission on behalf of Respondents by Counsel Tim Pullen undated
Masons Schedule of Documents undated (presumed July 1997) I cannot locate my witness statement nor that of Nicholas Carnell implying that since 2009 I have been hacked as these documents should be held electronically by me as above. Will load more documents next week. Have a riveting read and if you need to see evidence, where I can, I will oblige.
Schedule of Documents 2001-04-03
Schedule of Abstracted Documents 2001-04-03
Burden of Proof 2001-11-05
Submissions by Respondents 2001-11-05
Notice of Appeal 2002-08-13
Decision on Appeal for Review of Facts 2002-08-19
Appeal of Decision of Charles Ryan 2002-09-09
Order 2005-05-10
Particulars of Claim 2005-11-15
Skeleton Argument 2005-03-26
Order 2005-05-10
Claimants Supplemental Skeleton 2005-09-23
Defendants' Supplemental Skeleton 2005-09-23
Claimant's Second Supplemental Skeleton
Order 2006-07-28
Application to Lift Stay 2007-11-26

There is still more documents to be uploaded, do you think all of these documents are necessary? Also substantively they show every conceivable abuse Respondents' solicitors and Counsel could come up with. Noticeably they are not bringing a case against me hence the issue is that this sex discrimination case is one sided because for some unknown reason they think they can avoid or evade the choice of male comparator and the judiciary are acquiesent in this. It is solely for the Claimant to determine the male comparator and for respondents to delivery evidence showing a comparison. You cannot see the evidence (not yet anyway and there are 500 items discovered by me and about less than 20 pages discovered by them - but they did discover indirect information - the performance figures (which you can see on the November blog post if you look). Do you think the judge really needed so many documents detailing the case - this is a complete abuse of process especially when it is apparent the Respondents had no case at all. Elie Zekaria is the male comparator and it is obvious or should have been. Respondents' did not put forward any suggestion that he was not the male comparator other than complete denial. Technically, you should not be able to have a one sided sex discrimination - the judge is therefore NOT INDEPENDENT and moreover is NOT in control of the court. If you check out any documents take a look at APPEAL OF DECISION CHARLES RYAN 2002-09-09 and the procedural issues: also check out my Skeleton Argument dated 2003-03-26 establishing that the whole case is about procedural abuse and the judge is in on it. There then follows a significant delay in the case to 2012 - documents to follow - if you think this is bad enough - it gets worse!

These believe it or not are the WOOLF REFORMS to the English & Welsh legal system. Check out Scotland and Europe jurisdictions for yourselves as Woolf was implemented as the Directive on Mediation on the Subsidiary Principle and if Woolf screwed up the judicial system as averred, then the Directive made it law to do so. The lemmings jumped over the cliff ... If it happened to me, and I have an academic bent, then it has happened to others and is likely to be continuing and ongoing. I have asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty and a public inquiry ... watch this space.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Policies 21-27 Please Use

I have been lobbying for years and here are some more of my policies that I have either lobbied directly or through or via Consultations:

21. BBC could useful improve daytime TV by coverning more festivals like for instance the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Book and Politics festivals.  If the BBC would offer a package deal to people or groups that are engaged in culture, theatre, dance, politics, books, arts etc such as a package fee plus BBC made DVD of their production and a promis of a daytime slot on a BBC channel during the daytime, then TV would be improved across daytime tv rather than just coverage of the festival per se.  There are festivals and cultural and arts activities across the UK that could usefully be aired as daytime TV with reciprocal benefit.  At the moment daytime TV is the same programs shown during the day and repeated early evening and the schedule is then repeated every six months: this is tedious and programing is tired being shown so much.  This does not have to be the way forward and programming could usefully be revisited to events and coverage across the UK especially for festivals like Edinburgh Festival which is open to a global audience and impact and is currently an untapped resource by the BBC or any TV channel.  Glastonbury and Belladrum are captured so why not all Festivals and cultural events or more of them for a purpose - to take out the repeats on daytime TV scheduling.

22.1 The Monarchy could usefully be changed to a Committee of Monarchs in the event of Queen Elizabeth's reign ending.  No one person should be able to do all the work the Queen currently does and for so long.  A Committee of the heir only of each monarchy of the UK or a family representative in the event that the heir does not want to do it, or is to young or too old would suffice.  Everyone could either be specialist or generalist or do both as issues that a Monarchy has as their duties to their subjects.  To be on the Committee you would probably need to be age 14 (when you can actually do work) to probably age 75 and for a period only of 25 years before handing on to someone else.  All the hangers on would be dispensed with and would revert to ordinary people as would the members of the Committee but they would be supported financially by Government and facilitate modern history.  Much of the pomp and ceremony could go too and modernise the monarchy for the 21st century.  So either an heir of a King or Queen of the UK or the high probability of such a person being so would sit on the Monarchy Committee. 

22.2  There is a need to look at the Scottish Interregnum x 2.  The Scots are hiding their history behind this word.  The Interregnum related to the reign of King John Balliol and King Edward Balliol but not King Robert the Bruce - yet King John and King Robert were cousins.  There must be a reason for this and I have a couple of haunches, but consider it would be worth investigating, so am going to try as I have unravelled a couple of bits of mystery in relation to the Jermy/Balliol pedigree of Suffolk and Norfolk which identifies Princess Ellin Balliol's marriage to Sir John Jermy in the 13th Century and could prove to be fascinating if not also informative : Just saying ...

The mysteries on the Jermy Pedigree are being solved - firstly the marriage of Sir William Jermy to Anne Langford of Devon is important.  The clue is that Thomas Bretherton gave two parts dowry to his brother-in-law (Sir William Jermy) and one part to his wife - unravelled by implication as Thomas Bretherton's sister or half sister which is significant as Thomas Bretherton is the half brother of Edward II, ie the 17th child out of 20 children of Edward I and therefore second surviving son. Edward I married twice, Eleanor of Castile and Margaret of France.  If Anne is from the first marriage then she is sister to Edward II. If Anne is from the second marriage there is another mystery: is Margaret on her second marriage in which case Anne would be a step sister to Edward II or is she via the marriage to Edward I and therefore a half sister to Edward II / sister to Thomas Bretherton.  Further Thomas Bretherton is born in 1300 and lives till 1338.  This causes some dating problems with the pedigree as the question arises at what age did he give the dowry to the Jermy family.  This is important because Princess Ellin Balliol marries after Sir William Jermy and Anne Langford to their child Sir John Jermy - query is when.  The reason why this is important is because King John Balliol was forced under duress to adbdicate in 1296 (and died in 1314) and if she is the heir or her brother Edward Balliol is the heir they should have held the throne of Scotland if born before 1296 or 1299. (King Edward Balliol did hold the throne of Scotland but not in 1296 and died without issue, which again should have meant Princess Ellin was heir).  King Robert the Bruce is coronated in 1299.  By all accounts Robert the Bruce was a despicable character, when the 13 stood for the Crown of Scotland he was doing deals with three heirs against John II Ballioll who was eventually selected on the premis of primogeniture.  Robert the Bruce then sided with the English Edward I against King John Balliol and the Scots ensuring he was forced to abdicate - not nice.  He also murdered John Comyn the husband of Eleanor Balliol, King John Balliol's sister establishing that Princess Ellin, as daughter, and Eleanor as sister of John Balliol are two different people: there was some confusion over this issue now clarified. As stated, the marriage of Sir John Jermy to Princess Ellin Balliol led to the birth of John Jermy who was also knighted.  This mystery is significant as through birth he should have been a prince not a knight, as knighthoods are conferred.   (The Jermy family are knights from 1221 to the 17th Century so who has been conferring and why?).  This marriage is significant to my "haunches" as to what the interregnum is about which hides Scottish history twice - King John Balliol and his son King Edward Balliol.  So is the reaason potentially for hiding the Jermy family pedigree and its link to the Scots and English Crowns because Edward II may have been gay or is it a birth issue.  Thomas Bretherton is not to be confused with Thomas of Lancaster who was one of the wealthiest men in England with estates in Salisbury, Derby, Lincoln, Lancaster and Leicester who was cousin to Edward II.  Therefore for the Scots to claim that King John Balliol was "emptycoat" is not quite true as his daughter has married into a wealthy family - so the issue of the interregnum TWICE may not be about wealth or money  it may be about whether Prince Edward Balliol and/or Princess Ellin Balliol were born before 1296 as they should have succeeded if they did at 1296 effectively if Princess Ellin putting the Scots Crown on an English head potentially linked to the Crown of England, via Prince Thomas Bretherton.  Either way, it is not quite certain yet whether it is Sir John Jermy, father of Sir William Jermy who is provicded the dowry or Sir William Jermy's son, Sir John Jermy who receives the dowry - me and my brother are in dispute on this fact at the moment and he might be more right than me.  Just saying...

I said the information was fascinating:  King John Balliol's genealogy goes back to the first King of Norway Harald Fairhair with a brother Bloodaxe.  He is linked to the Kings of Sweden and Iceland and had an estate in Picardy in France around Calais and died at Helicourt.  His wife was Queen Devorgilla of Galloway who also had estates and was linked genealogy wise to Eleanor of Castile of France.  (She also was born on January 28 like me!!!!)  If married into the English Crown and Edward I his genealogy is linked to King Britain who had sons Lontrine, Albastran, and Cambrai and as a consequence Scots are required to do fealty and hommage to the English Crown.  Edward I also is linked to King Arthur and goes back to Ely and Saul.  This is according to two letters written in the 12 Century :  Pope Boniface to Edward I claiming the rights to Scotland for King John Balliol; and the response by Edward I to Pope Boniface as above.  Wikipedia also refers to kings of Wales and Jerusalem etc but I have not as yet checked them out.

So do you think I could have a Norwegian gene - Battleaxe instead of Bloodaxe!!  Unfortunately the pedigree has to go on the balance of probabilities in that regard albeit Scots can do "primogentiure" or "presumptive heir".  The pedigree informs that under Royal Licence in 1838 (so Queen Victoria) the estates of the Jermy family were swindled away by a Judge Preston and there was a murder.  The heir was a gardener Thomas Jermy and the pedigree informs the Gunton line is the true line.  As a consequence of the swindle and the high esteem the Jermy family were held in Norfolk and Suffolk, all names and derivatives of Jermy - Jermyn, Jarmin, Germany etc changed their names to Jermy and also married each other because they did not know who the heir was.  This is a genealogy nightmare and one that means that my mother's maiden name Jermy is mythical concerning the Jermy Pedigree for the time being anyway, but she was born in Norfolk.  (Not to detract from her mother's genealogy (Cole) which is also interesting as it leads to Guernsey, and an Amos Woolcock Whicker, a Headmaster of St Peter Port's Boys School, which must have been great fun as he was a classics scholar apparently and goes back to Marie Seigal). Such fun.  

23.  I had an idea about self-driving cars - the technology is available for cars to self-drive now.  With satnav and possibly technology on road signs, cars could self drive.  But I was thinking, cars are now not able to bump into each other with sensing technology.  Whilst a human can still bump into a car or perhaps a train could bump into a car or inanimate object, self sensing technology means that a car cannot bump into another car or human or inanimate object.  Only one car could be on a motorway or road at any one time and could not bump into front, side or back as the technology can slow down and stop a vehicle in the event of an accident.  Satnavs can pre-programme cars to drive one way, ie forward - no two cars could occupy the same spot.

24.1 China has been topical and I was interested in the Cities and their trees as there is a problem of air pollution in Chinese cities.  I was thinking, the rain forests and deserts must be on the planet for a reason.  Is it necessary for the "rain" forest to have trees and do trees create rain and the absence of trees create deserts.  Just saying.  Therefore in Chinese cities is the water the real problem: it goes up into the air which is seriously polluted and comes back down into the waterways and rivers and is affecting the trees cycle in the cities.  So is the answer - clean your water by water cleansing plants.  There are some types of trees such as Leylandii I am informed, that are better at purifying the air than others - so more conifers in cities, plants on flat roofs and balconies etc.  Anywhere you can plant a tree, do so - it might make it rain though!

24.2 There may be a problem with the Hinchley Point Nuclear plant deal.  I checked out the Official Journal of the European Union concerning this deal.  The last report logged in the bottom section informed there was "insufficient" information and a "risk" associated with this project.  The report informed that the area had been assessed on the basis of welfare, poverty, employment, property and housing but did not appear to have done environmental concerns - why?  Is Mark Carney and George Osborne doing misconduct in public office by proferring this deal to the Chinese and involving the French when the OJ informs there is risk associated with this deal and the project does not appear to have got its publication code as good to go yet?  A wee bit concerned there is a rush to do a deal with the Chinese - without going through the proper channels / due diligence that is usually associated with a construction project of this size.  My concerns are not against the Chinese per se - just want to see proper and correct approach adopted to handing out projects - we may have a referendum but we are still members of Europe - what would the sanctions be if improper approach occurs?

25.  I had an idea about insurance - people buy travel insurance when they go abroad, by plane, by rail, by coach and if I am going overnight to London I tend to spend the £1 buying the insurance for the return trip and it has never been necessary to make a claim so far.  I don't begrudge the £1 to have peace of mind and am willing to pay the money.  But what about all the day to day trips I make in a car, by local bus, by local train, or ferry as well as cheap flights.  I willingly pay for insurance for flights.  So what about an across the board travel product for everyday use which could usefully pay for upkeep and maintaining and creating new roads, rail travel, flights, ferries, transport in rural areas etc.  Makes a lot of sense if everyone spent £10 or £20 or so a year on a domestic travel policy for everyday use and frequency of use across all travel sectors - plus peace of mind.

26.1  I have said about employment issues and an umbrella act for mismanagement legislation already.  But I have noted that their is a lack of mental health lawyers in Scotland with only a handful of solicitors practising especially under the Scottish Legal Aid Scheme such that practices are lax and illegality is occurring at solicitor level as a consequence.  Broadening the scope of employment, human rights and insurance lawyers into the mental health sector would improve the service across Scotland.  For instance a cross department issue is the Mental Health legislation and the Disability Discrimination Act and Insurance law.  People with mental health disability do have contractual and statutory sick pay rights which could keep their employment open if "reasonable adjustment" was processed immediately when someone comes under mental health legislation.  Insurers should assess risk and process a reasonable adjustment contractual or statutory sick pay issue which could ensure some flexibility within the scope of the employment contract or if the risk assessment determined the contract as a fatal determination then compensation could be paid out to the employee, worker or self-employed person.  This would be a specific anti-poverty measure and prevent people going onto welfare benefits as too often that is the outcome of being sectioned under mental health legislation.  Also Mental Health legislation needs to encompass issues of (a) misdiagnosis; (b) not being diagnosed; (c) wrongful diagnosis; (d) and forced medication contrary to a persons freewill and independence.  Currently the legislation has to process a person for mental disability and cannot not process them where they do not concur with diagnosis or can't get a diagnosis.  This quite often is contrary to human rights and things like right to liberty, right to life, right to freedom of expression, right to family and private life and may also impact on right to a fair trial/hearing.  There is also a problem in mental health with jurisprudence - people can be "hidden" from society by being sectioned under mental health legislation and the system can be abused by organised crime and corruption and by other public bodies who do not wish to deal with the causative issues that are associated with a particular person.  People can also be "parked" on medication and can also be "invisible" to society.  Therefore there is a case in Scotland and probably the rest of the UK for mental health to come under an umbrella of Employment law, Human Rights and Insurance law to widen the number of lawyers practising in the area and also practising via the Scottish Legal Aid Board and for an upgrading of training and skills within mental health as a CPD practise development issue.  Ideally all solicitors should have to do Scottish Legal Aid Board work, or, a percentage of pro bono cases, to have a licence to practise law in Scotland / UK, especially as trainees and paralegals need to learn their craft somehow and there are sometimes lax periods in law for some firms especially the larger firms and quality needs to be engineered into the system of law somehow.  I am also concerned that some Scottish Legal Aid Solicitors refuse to represent clients and I don't quite get that - only if you have a "conflict of interest" should you be able to refuse to represent a client if you are required to do SLAB work aka UK too, especially if you are being touted as available for client work by public bodies.  Something needs to shift in Scotland as sadly I can report the legal profession are found wanting in Scotland big time.

26.2  There is already common law for (a) wrongful dismissal; and (b) unfair dismissal.  There is need for either common law or legislation for DEFAMATION BY DISMISSAL.  This blog is an example of it - see previous posts.

27. I lobbied on this one years ago. A person in the military let me know that a serious employment issue is that military members who play musical instruments that are deemed to be weapons, ie Bagpipes possibly also drums and Bugle and maybe others, are paid less than military personnel who play musical instruments. This seems to me grossly unfair and if it has not been rectified since I last lobbied on the issue, asap would be good.