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.