Litigant in Person
The Heather Mills and Paul McCartney Story ended yesterday and the newspapers duly got their field day.
Of merit to Ms Mills is this statement:
"'The power of one' was how she described it. She labelled herself as 'a campaigning girl' and urged others not to be frightened to represent themselves in court, even though, she insisted, the legal system didn't approve of it."
My blog appears to substantiate Ms Mills theory concerning litigants in person: not only have I done the research - on the Woolf Report - wherein Lord Woolf informs litigants in person are problematic, etc, etc (see academia in jurisprudence post) but I have also done the practical TWICE and am on going on a third litigation - I am in year 12 now in an attempt to secure Justice.
With the exception of Lord Justice Lindsay, I have found that judges pander to lawyered/barristered up Respondents to the degree that they are actually blind to the evidence and are often devoid of wisdom and intellect to such a degree that they are actually frauds/involved in corruption - a little legal mafia if you like - they certainly protect their own - moreover they use the "procedural rules" to delay, avoid actually reaching the substantive trial and many of the procedural rules are just not necessary at all.
Therefore, it would be more pertinent to actually ask Ms Mills where she sourced her obvious annoyance and raison d'etre to the degree that she did "street justice" and threw water over Ms Shackleton. Somewhere in that raison d'etre she reasoned that Ms Shackleton deserved a right proper drenching - it could have been an oozi.
In Jurisprudence, it is well known that you do not actually NEED a legal system in society - you can have a savage society - it is however, DESIREABLE to have a legal system, because it stops street justice and coerces people into the "intelligence" arena of the courts" supposedly. In our "feral society" why would someone spend £500 on a writ and wait 4 years to trial to be treated abominably and despicably by the legal/judicial profession when you can spend £500 on a gun and to hang the consequences.
Therefore, if a person is a "litigant in person" they should be perceived as "necessary" to a legal system - because - at the end of the day if the ordinary man in the street cannot use the legal system because it is too complex, too biased/prejudiced/corrupt to the legal/judical (system) - they will show how and where there needs to be improvements. We have all heard the saying "the person on the Clapham omnibus" as being "the reasonable person image in society". Well somehow Ms Shackleton got drenched - and given what I have been through - I don't reckon on Ms Mills not doing it for a reason.
The Judiciary would be prudent (jurisprudent) to meet with Ms Mills to discuss the proceedings in her case IF NOT ALSO Disability bodies. Ms Mills has her own persona in society, she is not an unintelligent woman - yet she "reacted" to the treatment she received from Ms Shackleton - noticeably she did not throw the water over the judge or Mr McCartney!!!!
The Drenching of Ms Fiona Shackleton
UPDATE - 24/4/08
There is an article in the Daily Mail 24/4/08 by Paul Revoir and Richard Simpson informing "£500m" Sir Paul - Beatle is worth 25pc more than he declared in his divorce, says study. The issue appears to relate to the fact that "The Sunday Times Rich List suggests court estimates of McCartney's wealth did not appear to take into account the proceeds of his first wife Linda's will.
The explanation for that could be that the purposes of the course hearing this amount was no considered to be part of McCartney's wealth, as it was left in a trust not owned by him, and which is controlled by trustees and not him personally.
The list will also claim that the court estimate undervalued his back catalogue of songs, image rights and recordings. ...
As the highest-earning rock star, he is ranked 158th on the 2008 list, down from 102 last year.
However, independent research by the Daily Mail reveals that his wealth may be as much £800 million."
Thanks for the clarity by the Daily Mail :
[Unfortunately, I could not find the link to this article]
Of merit to Ms Mills is this statement:
"'The power of one' was how she described it. She labelled herself as 'a campaigning girl' and urged others not to be frightened to represent themselves in court, even though, she insisted, the legal system didn't approve of it."
My blog appears to substantiate Ms Mills theory concerning litigants in person: not only have I done the research - on the Woolf Report - wherein Lord Woolf informs litigants in person are problematic, etc, etc (see academia in jurisprudence post) but I have also done the practical TWICE and am on going on a third litigation - I am in year 12 now in an attempt to secure Justice.
With the exception of Lord Justice Lindsay, I have found that judges pander to lawyered/barristered up Respondents to the degree that they are actually blind to the evidence and are often devoid of wisdom and intellect to such a degree that they are actually frauds/involved in corruption - a little legal mafia if you like - they certainly protect their own - moreover they use the "procedural rules" to delay, avoid actually reaching the substantive trial and many of the procedural rules are just not necessary at all.
Therefore, it would be more pertinent to actually ask Ms Mills where she sourced her obvious annoyance and raison d'etre to the degree that she did "street justice" and threw water over Ms Shackleton. Somewhere in that raison d'etre she reasoned that Ms Shackleton deserved a right proper drenching - it could have been an oozi.
In Jurisprudence, it is well known that you do not actually NEED a legal system in society - you can have a savage society - it is however, DESIREABLE to have a legal system, because it stops street justice and coerces people into the "intelligence" arena of the courts" supposedly. In our "feral society" why would someone spend £500 on a writ and wait 4 years to trial to be treated abominably and despicably by the legal/judicial profession when you can spend £500 on a gun and to hang the consequences.
Therefore, if a person is a "litigant in person" they should be perceived as "necessary" to a legal system - because - at the end of the day if the ordinary man in the street cannot use the legal system because it is too complex, too biased/prejudiced/corrupt to the legal/judical (system) - they will show how and where there needs to be improvements. We have all heard the saying "the person on the Clapham omnibus" as being "the reasonable person image in society". Well somehow Ms Shackleton got drenched - and given what I have been through - I don't reckon on Ms Mills not doing it for a reason.
The Judiciary would be prudent (jurisprudent) to meet with Ms Mills to discuss the proceedings in her case IF NOT ALSO Disability bodies. Ms Mills has her own persona in society, she is not an unintelligent woman - yet she "reacted" to the treatment she received from Ms Shackleton - noticeably she did not throw the water over the judge or Mr McCartney!!!!
The Drenching of Ms Fiona Shackleton
UPDATE - 24/4/08
There is an article in the Daily Mail 24/4/08 by Paul Revoir and Richard Simpson informing "£500m" Sir Paul - Beatle is worth 25pc more than he declared in his divorce, says study. The issue appears to relate to the fact that "The Sunday Times Rich List suggests court estimates of McCartney's wealth did not appear to take into account the proceeds of his first wife Linda's will.
The explanation for that could be that the purposes of the course hearing this amount was no considered to be part of McCartney's wealth, as it was left in a trust not owned by him, and which is controlled by trustees and not him personally.
The list will also claim that the court estimate undervalued his back catalogue of songs, image rights and recordings. ...
As the highest-earning rock star, he is ranked 158th on the 2008 list, down from 102 last year.
However, independent research by the Daily Mail reveals that his wealth may be as much £800 million."
Thanks for the clarity by the Daily Mail :
[Unfortunately, I could not find the link to this article]
posted by Lesley McDade at 11:10 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home