The Mismanagement, Detrimental Man Management and Judicial Corruption post is about perversion of the course of justice. FIRST LITIGATION: My solicitor moved an unprepared case forward from Stratford in December to Ashford in July 1997 leaving 17 days to prepare for trial, initially without my consent.
I had a conference with counsel. My barrister could not find an argument if it stood up and smacked him in the face.
My solicitor came off the record two days to trial and refused to instruct my barrister on the premis that he did not have a potential fee on account. His fees were paid up-to-date and he held money on trust for my barrister's actual fee.
I prepared the case to trial.
My witness, a barrister, informed he would prepare a witness statement.
My witness, above, informed that he would not prepare a witness statement but turn up on the day.
My witness, above, informed that they would only deal with the case from the point of transfer. (How did he know this?)
Respondent's Counsel and Respondent's in-house legal team only prepared their case from the point of tranfer (deliberate action) and made a great play about my case being 2 lever arch files to their 1/2 lever arch file and used yellow paper to denote the difference.
The Judge in the IT would only process the case from the point of transfer and obstructed my witnesses testimony, my cross-examination and any reference to events prior to the point of transfer - ie, the cause.
My witness, above referred, failed to attend the IT hearing.
Respondent's Counsel informed the judge he "knew my witnesses itinerary for the following two weeks". (How did he know this?)
Professor Richard Susskind OBE informs in his Witness Statement that he did a 40 man hour investigation prior to my dismissal. None of this material was delivered up under the rules of discovery. The whole case is set up so as to not deal with it. Either Professor Susskind "deliberately" attempted to pervert the course of justice by failing to discovery it "knowingly", or he did not do it and has committed perjury. I have never seen the 40 man hour investigation material, nor have I seen a witness statement of 15 minutes duration from their principle witness and allegations were brought and processed on the premis that I am a mindreader. It is provable that I never had a 15 minute conversation with the person concerned on the simple basis at the time I am alleged to be having the conversation about the senior partner's secretary having a loud voice, my colleague was in a room with the junior partner concerned actually having the conversation about the loud voice, and I am not a mindreader. In my earlier meeting with the junior partner I made a completely different statement that the senior partner's secretary was as good as a man short in the department. I was concerned about her lack of skills, not her loud voice.
ISSUE: Suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice inclusive of "nobbled" witness.
Police were informed and suggested Appeal. Appeal occurred to the EAT.
The appeal hearing was an ex parte preliminary hearing.
Respondent's in-house lawyer who was now a Consultant attended!!
The appeal was on points of law and a case citation ratio decidendi, London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman was read verbatim to the courts. Legal arguments on the 'ultra vires' doctrine - outwith the scope of - were read to the court. Evidence was referred to which was the contract. The case citation is a "public" law case, whereas my contract is "private" law.
The Judgment of the court DOES NOT refer to the case citation, the ultra vires doctrine or the points of contract.
ISSUE: Perversion of the course of justice is certain. Action is deliberate and is judicial.
The Police were informed and suggested an Appeal. An ex parte application hearing was provided at the Court of Appeal.
The case had an Article 177 Preliminary Reference in it to the European Court of Justice which is processed at the "discretion" of the Judges.
The Judges only gave 1/2 hour for representations and were aware the issues involved a perversion of the course of justice.
The Article 177 Preliminary Reference was blocked by case law cited by the Judge.
Perversion of the course of justice was not processed.
I stormed out of the hearing and did not wait to hear the judgment informing the judge he was "despicable".
No Judgement has been received and it is not known whether one exists.
An ex-cop told me to obtain the Mechanical and Engineers Transcript.
The Mechanical and Engineers Transcript has "inaudible" gaps throughout which does not establish a pattern such as faulty recording equipment, rather someone playing with the recording equipment or other equipment to drown out recording.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords is not permitted from an ex parte application hearing - the case was therefore being removed from "Access to Justice".
However, the Woolf Report established the Access to Justice Act 1999. A Petition to the House of Lords was made and accepted on the basis that the Woolf Report implemented "Access to Justice" and made leave at the court of appeal stage a non sequitur and the case Lane v Esdaile as blocking case law, obsolete!!.
ISSUE: Perversion of the course of justice is definitely occurring and there appears to be a cover up by the judiciary. (Legal mafia inherent within judiciary - suspicion Professor Richard Susskind OBE is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice, however there are 4 other known possible sources of "knowledge" and "opportunity")
The Police were informed and suggested an Appeal. Appeal occurred to the House of Lords.
There was an Article 177 Preliminary Reference to the European Court of Justice which is an "automatic" referral from the House of Lords
£500 cheque is cashed.
Prayers are said firstly by the Bishop of Derby and then again by the Bishop of Birmingham.
Three law lords deem the case inadmissable even although it clearly states there is a perversion of the course of justice occurring on the case.
Two of the Law Lords have potentially a lack of impartiality, especially Hope of Craighead, but not make any declaration.
ISSUE: Perversion of the course of Justice by the Judiciary (inherent legal mafia within the Department of Constitutional Affairs)
The Police were informed and suggested it was an issue for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord Chancellor's department suggested it was an issue for the Police. SECOND LITIGATION: This case had a bumpy ride as proceedings were not issued correctly. However, the judge agreed to hear the sex discrimination issues.
An appeal was made to the EAT and CA on the first half of the case to no avail.
The Sex Discrimination case had difficulties with process and procedure.
A Directions hearing was necessary because Respondents solicitors did not process Responses to Further and Better Particulars correctly such that they could not understand responses which were succinct and crystal clear and tried to make it out as being my fault. The Judge ordered in their favour and I had to prepare a further response to Further and Better Particulars. If Respondents could not understand my responses, then Respondents should have been ordered to ask more succinct and specific request for further and better particulars!!
The Respondents' external lawyers would not do discovery correctly and refused to deliver up male comparator data save for 4 pages of performance figures analysis.
The Court were requested to make several hostile witness orders as witness were either uncontactable because they had moved away from Respondents or were unwilling to attend. Unfortunately the fax informs 2 pages received 'OK' but the court informed 2 days to trial that 3/4 of the second page was missing which included the names of the hostile witnesses details. The Judge refused to make hostile witness orders when the error came to light even although everyone was based in London and there was 2 days and a weekend to trial. Only 1 hostile witness appeared in court on my behalf.
Respondents' solicitors failed to deliver up witness statements by the due date, however, did provide them on the day in court.
Two named Respondents, the Senior Partner of the firm and the Senior Partner of the Department failed to deliver up witness statements at all or attend court for cross-examination.
Respondents' solicitors were ordered to prepare an "agreed" court bundle, they received my papers, and removed approximately 2/3rd of my evidence from the case.
They also prepared the "agreed" court bundle to meet their criteria, rather than chronologically as per my documents.
The trial Judge was going to throw the case out on the basis of a strike-out application, but an argument in equity "in the interests of justice" prevailed due to foul play by the Respondents and the Judge ordered a "disagreed" court bundle to be prepared for the next day.
The Judge was requested to process Respondents for failing to prepare witness statements and attend court for cross-examination as contempt of court. He did not do so.
The case was heard and two issues of perjury surfaced. One issue concerned Respondent's Counsel on the First Litigation above. I had seen my boss and Respondent's Counsel in the pub whilst seconded to a client project and was attending a leaving do. There may exist photographic evidence. On cross-examination of my boss I asked if he had ever met Respondent's Counsel (in full knowledge that he had) he informed he had been introduced to him that morning in court by Respondents' Counsel on the second litigation. I asked if he was sure, he had never met Respondent's Counsel before. He said he was sure. The judge did not process him for perjury.
The second issue of perjury concerned my other boss whose witness statement was a pack of lies. However it was left for the Judge to process the evidence thoroughly, no issue of perjury was found.
There was reference in the court to 9/11.
The Judgment was released 9 months later. An appeal had 42 days in which to be processed and the last date for process of an appeal was 9/11. (This appeared to be a subconcious issue by the judiciary).
The Judgment did not find in my favour for sex discrimination.
The only evidence Respondents' provided to the case was the performance figures of the whole department. These figures are objectively collated and cannot be manipulated by others as each individual posts their own time. This data proves that sex discrimination did actually occur and makes a mockery of the Judge's 9 month reserved decision.
Respondents provided me with a reference which states I am honest with integrity.
ISSUE: The Senior Partner is known to associate with the Department of Constitional Affairs - (legal mafia inherent within the judiciary and legal profession). ANCILLARY ISSUES: 3 Barristers were referred to the Bar Council: my barrister for failure to try to prepare a case; my witness for being nobbled and for stalking, and Respondent's counsel for nobbling my witness. Stories did not tie up and there is apparent evasion of questions. However, one barrister did implicate 2 QC's who were also referred to the Bar Council. They refused to participate.
Approximately 25 solicitors were referred to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors, who processed 3 complaints. An article was published in The Times informing my case handler, Jane Betts, was experiencing bullying by Kamlesh Bahl. Another article informed that Kamlesh Bahl had instructed a solicitor, Jill Andrews to represent her. There was a news blackout on the issue thereafter. I was provided another case handler. Jill Andrew was a colleague of most of the people referred to the OSS. (Suspicious)
However, the OSS was being reformed and the company awarded the contract was Ernst & Young. Professor Richard Susskind OBE used to work for Ernst & Young. (This may not be coincidental on the basis that Lord Woolf was reforming the English & Welsh legal system on the premis "Access to Justice" - my case establishes that the practicality is doing the opposite "Access FROM Justice". My academic writings also establish the issue is "Access FROM Justice" in theory. Professor Richard Susskind OBE is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and issues are unlikely to be coincidental - someone has to benefit!!).
Matters with the Bar Council and the OSS were referred to the Ombudsman. The Omsbudsman found no findings of misconduct.
Incidentally, both law firms appear to have had staff haemorrage's. Of notice is my boss from the first litigation, is now working alongside my boss from the second litigation.
I have always argued that my bosses in the second litigation were being affected by my bosses in the first litigation and that treatment I was experiencing on the second litigation was sourcing from the first litigation.
In the legal world, law is a little village. All of this occurred because of a "knowingly" incompetent secretary. Perverting the course of justice carries a penalty of 4-7 years. Misconduct in public office carries a penalty of life. I don't know what the penalty is for perjury.
For a Professor of Law and Philosophy who is supposed to be a first class law graduate from a top Scottish University to be seen to be lacking in knowledge of public law - ultra vires doctrine - and for a top London law firm to be seen to be unable to interpret a "simple" contract which they drafted and refined is beyond credible. For second litigants, another top law firm, to be "blind to the obvious" concerning indirect data collection such as performance figures and know how their firm is actually operating, is pure ludicrous.
Issues are deliberate. They knew the risks, took the risks, and must now take the consequences. At all times, they had the opportunity to settle out of court - they chose to pervert the course of justice.
Police at Rotherhithe, Southwark and Manchester were notified either of the perversion of the case or the failure of the OSS and Ombudsman to process complaints properly. No police station provided a recorded crime number and therefore no crime has been processed.
My cases are either "unique" or are "tip of the iceberg" - see academic issues. There are three issues currently under process - watch this space!
[It is anticipated that by going public "illumination" will prevent further corruption - details of the second litigation and complaints are not posted yet for a reason].
Discuss.
