Human Rights/Freedom of Choice-Virtual Court/One Sided Judgment
Today's newspapers have been very informative:
Firstly, good to see this : well done Lord Justice Collins - it is important and necessary:
Human Rights - Right to Life
Secondly, this is the nonsense concerning the Woolf Reforms - a mediation is not necessarily cost effective and may not settle this dispute whereby litigation would have been desireable. What is necessary is giving people the choice of forum, with a right to thereafter choose to litigate if needs must by ensuring that limitation periods are not applied - albeit I would argue a limitation period is a piece of nonsense in any event.
This shows that the judicial system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. The costs in this case should not be at this level and basically the judiciary and the legal profession, I suspect, have done a mickey take on these people. These types of claims should be low value claims as they only need to "reiterate" the rule of law, not challenge it. It does not take too much nouse for an IT programmer to come up with a system which is affordable and can be accessed by lawyers as a package deal, similar to how the conveyancing system processes buying and selling of property. The judges in this case are probably not in control of their courtroom, there is probably a lot of procedural abuse by the legal profession on both sides - someone should really take a look at this case with a view to bringing the judiciary into the 21st century, ie get real.
Litigation v Mediation - need some judicial nouse/freedom of choice/virtual courts
Thirdly, this is of interest:
"Miss Mills described her divorce battle with Sir Paul - in which she represented herself - as "David versus Goliath".
She said she is "arguing on a daily basis" with the judge Mr Justice Bennett to get the full transcripts of the case released and described the current available court papers as a "one-sided judgment". "
One sided Judgment
This is clearly of interest as my judgment at the EAT posted below reflects the same issue that Ms Mills is arguing here. In my case, the legal arguments put to the judge and contained in the appeal document MUST be premised on a point of law at appeal - in my litigation, substantively 5 case precedent, 3 statutory references and 3 clauses in a common law contract - none are in the resulting judgment and it is clear that the judge was bent as it was an ex parte application hearing (which the Respondent's senior employment in-house lawyer attended!) and therefore should have been one sided - ex parte means the other side are not supposed to be present!. Unfortunately my MP is completely unable or unwilling to deal with this issue politically and given I have now completed two litigations with substantively a load of nonsense occurring on each litigation at judicial and legal level it is apparent that the issue is an "inside" job involving a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and criminally defame my good character. I would urge Judge Bennett to deliver up the full judgment or I would say to Ms Mills - you litigated - a court case is public domain - publish the documents, as I consider you do have the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act and therefore may not have your esteem lowered in the public domain by a one sided judgment, especially not by the judiciary who should know better - a right to freedom of expression is restricted by not acting in bad faith (misrepresentation); mistake (which must be rectified when it becomes known), libel, slander, defamation. Mr McCartney even I have trouble swallowing a line that you are worth £400 million when the Rich Lists state £800 million - they must source their knowledge from somewhere or else are all on the Rich List over inflated/evaluated, which might come as a shock to some. A missing £400 million, I think you would notice, be somewhat concerned about or your friends/colleagues/family would be concerned about and if the compilers of the Rich Lists are misrepresenting or making such humungous mistakes then maybe they need to publish the real and actual state of affairs of the Rich and famous. Are we in for a shock or are they! (I don't consider Ms Mills should be standing alone and unsupported on this issue - someone is clearly in the wrong and it is not Ms Mills). I do also question the £3 million legal fee you paid, no doubt the disbursements and outlays would prove interesting under analysis. I worked in a team on a £24 billion global merger in a top 20 London law firm as a £120 per hour fee earner paralegal for a year and I saw the bill, roughly £3 million, albeit it may have been an interim bill.
I googled for the Sunday Times UK Rich List: 2007 came up. I put in Paul McCartney's name and it came up £725m and his place was 102.
Check for yourself:
Sunday Times Rich List - 2007
Firstly, good to see this : well done Lord Justice Collins - it is important and necessary:
Human Rights - Right to Life
Secondly, this is the nonsense concerning the Woolf Reforms - a mediation is not necessarily cost effective and may not settle this dispute whereby litigation would have been desireable. What is necessary is giving people the choice of forum, with a right to thereafter choose to litigate if needs must by ensuring that limitation periods are not applied - albeit I would argue a limitation period is a piece of nonsense in any event.
This shows that the judicial system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. The costs in this case should not be at this level and basically the judiciary and the legal profession, I suspect, have done a mickey take on these people. These types of claims should be low value claims as they only need to "reiterate" the rule of law, not challenge it. It does not take too much nouse for an IT programmer to come up with a system which is affordable and can be accessed by lawyers as a package deal, similar to how the conveyancing system processes buying and selling of property. The judges in this case are probably not in control of their courtroom, there is probably a lot of procedural abuse by the legal profession on both sides - someone should really take a look at this case with a view to bringing the judiciary into the 21st century, ie get real.
Litigation v Mediation - need some judicial nouse/freedom of choice/virtual courts
Thirdly, this is of interest:
"Miss Mills described her divorce battle with Sir Paul - in which she represented herself - as "David versus Goliath".
She said she is "arguing on a daily basis" with the judge Mr Justice Bennett to get the full transcripts of the case released and described the current available court papers as a "one-sided judgment". "
One sided Judgment
This is clearly of interest as my judgment at the EAT posted below reflects the same issue that Ms Mills is arguing here. In my case, the legal arguments put to the judge and contained in the appeal document MUST be premised on a point of law at appeal - in my litigation, substantively 5 case precedent, 3 statutory references and 3 clauses in a common law contract - none are in the resulting judgment and it is clear that the judge was bent as it was an ex parte application hearing (which the Respondent's senior employment in-house lawyer attended!) and therefore should have been one sided - ex parte means the other side are not supposed to be present!. Unfortunately my MP is completely unable or unwilling to deal with this issue politically and given I have now completed two litigations with substantively a load of nonsense occurring on each litigation at judicial and legal level it is apparent that the issue is an "inside" job involving a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and criminally defame my good character. I would urge Judge Bennett to deliver up the full judgment or I would say to Ms Mills - you litigated - a court case is public domain - publish the documents, as I consider you do have the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act and therefore may not have your esteem lowered in the public domain by a one sided judgment, especially not by the judiciary who should know better - a right to freedom of expression is restricted by not acting in bad faith (misrepresentation); mistake (which must be rectified when it becomes known), libel, slander, defamation. Mr McCartney even I have trouble swallowing a line that you are worth £400 million when the Rich Lists state £800 million - they must source their knowledge from somewhere or else are all on the Rich List over inflated/evaluated, which might come as a shock to some. A missing £400 million, I think you would notice, be somewhat concerned about or your friends/colleagues/family would be concerned about and if the compilers of the Rich Lists are misrepresenting or making such humungous mistakes then maybe they need to publish the real and actual state of affairs of the Rich and famous. Are we in for a shock or are they! (I don't consider Ms Mills should be standing alone and unsupported on this issue - someone is clearly in the wrong and it is not Ms Mills). I do also question the £3 million legal fee you paid, no doubt the disbursements and outlays would prove interesting under analysis. I worked in a team on a £24 billion global merger in a top 20 London law firm as a £120 per hour fee earner paralegal for a year and I saw the bill, roughly £3 million, albeit it may have been an interim bill.
I googled for the Sunday Times UK Rich List: 2007 came up. I put in Paul McCartney's name and it came up £725m and his place was 102.
Check for yourself:
Sunday Times Rich List - 2007
posted by Lesley McDade at 8:51 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home