Saturday, October 28, 2006

EU Consultation Paper Responses on the Labour Market

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Judicial Latin

Eodem modo quo ontur, eodem modo dissolvitur

What has been created by agreement may be extinguished by agreement

Res ipsa loquitur

The thing speaks for itself

Guru

I couldn't resist letting you in on this:

GURU: The Sanskrit word means "weighty". A guru is a preceptor who had the weighty role of preserving the oral wisdom called Veda. Veda is supposed to have been taught originally by God, who is the primoridial guru. In ancient times pupils staying at a guru's home for twelve years had to learn Vedic hymns and rituals, along with phonetics, grammar, astronomy, metrics, rhetoric, logic, and metaphysics. A worshipful attitude towards a guru is inherent in Indian culture - whence the perverted tradition of Tantra, the word is broken up into gu meaning 'darkness' and ru meaning 'light', signifying the role of a spiritual eye-opener. Buddhism, which denies the knowledge-yielding capacity of testimony, recommends reliance on one's own reason rather than on a guru.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

Words to the wise - 'keep your own counsel'.

Professor DisOBEdient is more in league with the devil than God. Where he got the devine light to sack two highly competent secretaries who knew how to use the IT equipment to an advanced level in a computer technology law firm and kept the incompetent secretary who was deemed valuable beats me. Also where he devined the word "transfer" in my contract of employment as a management decision when there existed a contract of employment which the firm drafted and refined is beyond me.

God, I don't think so. Nutter more like.

He is not exactly a walking advertisement for a top 25 London law firm. How did he get the job of IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. Doesn't hold out much scope for the Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice by association. What are they doing to the legal system, aside from wrecking it, is he designing a "privatised" computer, one that hides the truth and reveals nothing about the rule of law. Can one rely on LAWTEL decisions or any judgment in the 21st Century without having an opportunity to peruse the court documents first.

Naming names referred to in complaints

The Bar Complaints:

Sean Brannigan
Bruce Carr
Michael Ford
Jeremy McMullen QC
Geoffrey Robertson QC

Only Brannigan/Carr/Ford were processed the QC's refused to answer allegations. Carr informed McMullen had a potential intermediary role.

The Office of the Supervision of Solicitors:

Belinda Avery
Neil Biggs
John Bishop
Andrew Blunderfield
Tony Bunch
Nicholas Carnell
Julian Critchlow
Siobhan Cross
Julia Elson
Lawrence Fryer
Brian Gegg
Edward Goodwin
Howard Goulden
David Harrell
Adam Harris
Carmela Inguanta
Ian Insley
Guy Jordan
Ric Martin
Rob McCullough
Anne Molyneux
Nicholas Sarker
Clive Seddon
Anna Sharvatt
Rolf Stein
Richard Susskind
Stephen York

All have participated in activities across two litigations. Only 3 complaints were processed Cross/Sharvatt/Stein. Jane Betts was the case handler. Kamlesh Bahl was head of the OSS and Jane Betts complained in the Times she was being bullied by Kamlesh Bahl. Kamlesh Bahl was legally represented by Jill Andrews who used to be a colleague to most of the complaints. There was a news blackout on the Betts/Bahl story. Jim McGowan took over from Jane Betts and it was alleged the files had been flooded. The OSS was also being reformed at the time of the complaints and Richard Susskind was believed to be a member of the management team.

All Bar Complaints and Office of Supervision of Solicitor Complaints were referred to the Ombusdman. The Ombudsman was Ann Abrahams.

(I merely state the facts as I know them inferences should not be drawn)

All papers were referred to the Police and then to the IPCC (police complaints)

All this because Cathy James was a "knowingly" incompetent legal secretary and left a confidential memo in the public network directory because she didn't have confidential directories as per company policy. Richard Susskind would have known the minute he saw the allegations that they were spurious, he therefore knew he had two negligent lawyers to deal with. If he had been reasonable he would have put Cathy James into retraining or sacked her and referred two solicitors Molyneux/Cross to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors. When the allegations were made they failed to deliver up any evidence to support their allegations, not even a witness statement by Anne Glazebrook as to the nature of the contents of the 15 minute conversation. As a law firm it is shoddy to expect someone to admit to something they have no knowledge of without providing some form of evidence in support. It is believed that Catherine Johnson did not have a conversation with Anne Glazebrook. Therefore the source of any knowledge Anne Glazebrook alleges is not known and remains denied. It is believed that Catherine Johnson had a conversation with Andrew Blunderfield. It is believed that Andrew Blunderfield had a conversation with Siobhan Cross. It is known that Catherine Johnson had a conversation with Siobhan Cross. Anne Glazebrook claims to have been "pushed" by Siobhan Cross. It is believed that Anne Glazebrook had conversations with Andrew Blunderfield, hence most of the allegations against me are impressions and suggestions rather than fact sourcing from Andrew Blunderfield via Catherine Johnson. Because of the allegation about the loud voice which occurred with Catherine Johnson it is believed that I have not had a conversation with Anne Glazebrook as it would have to be simultaneous in time and I could not mind read a meeting between Siobhan Cross and Catherine Johnson. Therefore the allegations are all false.

After the disciplinary hearing Richard Susskind would have realised he had a serious defamation issue on his hands and that issues had damaged my law degree. He claims to have done a 40 man hour investigation but has failed to deliver it up to the courts. Why? What is he trying to hide? Answer: "Knowledge". Under the Rules of Discovery, you must discovery everything in your "knowledge, possession or control that is material to the case". As a lawyer he cannot evade knowledge of the rules of discovery, so why was his case prepared so as not to divulge it, when my case (and I was bringing the action) was prepared to deal with "cause" and "causation". Why was the judge only prepared to deal with the case at the point prepared by Richard Susskind? Why was an unprepared case brought forward by 6 months to Ashford, rather than 10 months in Stratford? Why did my solicitors do everything to come off the record rather than to prepare my case? Why is it, the case prepared for court was prepared by myself? Why is it one of my principle witnesses failed to prepare his witness statement, and when not prepared, turn up to court?

There is an overriding factor in my case - everyone omitting to act. If I link mens rea on this fact between two people it will be an inchoate offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In any event there is an issue of aiding and abetting the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office relative to Richard Susskind.

As I said there have been two litigations, there are several links between the two amongst the names provided above.

There is one person who has been harmed by this case, unfortunately I must be objective. The person put himself directly in the firing line by failing to act, he must therefore take the consequences. I understand he is angry, but it is his own fault, he cannot evade knowledge and therefore must take responsibility for his own actions. If he wants to contact me to clear his name then he can do so (my email address is on the profile page of this blogspot), but at the moment, the knowledge in my possession causes me to believe he is involved in criminality.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Call for a Review of New Legislation

This should be done automatically

There is a need to review the Access to Justice Act 1999 especially ex parte preliminary hearings, ex parte application hearings and skeleton arguments and CPR Rule 26 which is unjust law.

I recall at the implementation of the 1999 legislation that David Pannick QC wrote a sterling article in the Times against the proposal for "Skeleton Arguments" being used in court instead of the full text.

My court action, posted below shows that the court had my appeal document as part of the bundle. The first question put to the judge was "have you read the papers"? (Advice to trainees - always, always ask this as a first question - you will be surprised how many judges don't read the papers!!). My judge informed he had read the papers so we proceeded to the skeleton argument.

I read verbatim the case citation "London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman". I then read the whole "ratio decidendi" of that case. I then proceeded to do legal argument utilising the "ultra vires doctrine" and then I gave points of evidence.

None of the above is contained in the Judgment.

The conclusion is that the Judge is actually "perverting the course of justice and that it is certain. The secondary consideration is that the judge has intentionally mislead the public, because a decision is public domain and by not resolving the case in my favour has knowingly defamed my good character. The issue is "intentionally" mislead, because he had to have a reason for so doing and as the action was Lesley McDade v Masons it is perceived to be for a masonic reason.

Interestingly, Respondents in-house solicitor also attended an EX PARTE preliminary hearing!!

So, the Commission have an issue to investigate - but pray do tell who a person reports to for an investigation to occur. I have informed the Police who suggested I appeal the case eventually informing it was an issue for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor's Department informed it was the Police. The IPCC investigated the Police Officers to no avail. The Bar Complaints investigated the barristers to no avail. The Office of the Supervision of Solicitors investigated 3 of 26 solicitors referred to no avail. And the Ombudsman investigated the Bar Complaints and Office of Supervision of Solicitors to no avail.

In other words: the entire bloody system failed.

Why?

Surely not because you think a Professor of Law and Philosophy is more intelligent than a legal secretary!

(I have to admit, I am probably the exception rather than the norm - but you never know as my idiot of a Professor is openly referred to as a "Guru" - look it up in the dictionary)

The idiot holds public office as the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. As he holds public office, he can be processed for misconduct in public office which is a criminal offence which carries a life sentence - am working on it at the moment! Might have been better to have settled out of court and I can't think of a reason why you didn't, given Anne Molyneux, solicitor, told the T-lady, Diane, there was "blood all over the walls" after my disciplinary hearing and she brought the allegations.

Courts are "public" for a reason

Public and publicity


Whilst I don't have an awful lot of time for Lord Woolf, this time (as opposed to his Access to Justice Act 1999) he appears to recognise why the courts are "public".

There is also an obvious issue of the need for the separation of the powers!

Also, Tribunals, they are known as "inferior courts" for a reason, do we really need or want more.

Discuss.

Controversy - A right Scottish tiswas

Friday, October 06, 2006

Recyling update - Going Nationwide

Chip in Bin is going Nationwide. My idea however deals with four areas:

1. The environmental concern - recycling rather than landfill.

2. Creating Processing Plants to float on the Stock Exchange to create intangibles for the business world.

3. Sorting of waste into processing categories by receiving an incentive to do so by reduction in community tax.

4. Universities and colleges request design students to design somethiing from recycled material as part of their degree/diploma courses.

Whilst 1 and 3 above have been mentioned in the press, there has been no mention of 2 and 4. What do they propose to do with all the rubbish they have gathered under the feasibility study pilot of the chip in bin?


Going Nationwide

Pay-as-you-throw

Pay-as-you-throw again

Sir Michael Lyons "suggests" the idea-who's idea!!!

Every seven weeks we dump our own weight in waste - statistics

Chip in Bin

Chip in bin again

More chip in bin

Even more Chip in Bin

Some more chip in bin