Equality 'before' the law and Justice
Some of you may, like myself, enjoy TV channel hoping after 9.00 pm for such programmes as 'CSI' (brilliant for direct and indirect analysis of evidence / forensic science); 'House' (brilliant deductive reasoning); 'Law and Order' (brilliant analysis of judicial process and "independence"!).
Last night's "Law and Order" produced a statement there is a difference between "law" and "justice" and as usual I was launching a dialetic at the TV - minus expletives!
The answer, to my mind, was no there is not a difference ... because ... we have "equality before the law". As such, the process and the substantive trial are always subject to equality and therefore given law is a "Profession" where lawyers, when involved in the process, must be "educated and trained" to attain professional qualification to any degree from "trainee under articles/traineeship", assistant, associate or salaried partner and equity* partner (*which means the lawyer part owns the firm), all are subject to professional codes of conduct and ethics and have to have a licence known as the practising certificate to practise law. The only exception is a paralegal who may practise with or without a law degree or professional training so long as they are supervised by an assistant, associate or partner: as was the case concerning myself when I worked for the law firm S J Berwin & Co from 1995-1998: I have never done articles or professional training exams known as CPE or done any points based accredition which lawyers are required to do to maintain their professionalism!
Back to "Law and Order" - the difference they allude to may exist but should not exist between law and justice because of professional and ethical training. Where a writ/summons/originating application is issued on a court - all parties named on the writ must engage in the process unless settlement negotiations occur (known as settlement at the courtroom door) to not do so would be deliberate corruption and perversion of the course of justice (as in my Sex Discrimination case) . Where the case is not progressing the issue is (a) contempt of court; (b) obstruction of the course of justice; or (c) perversion of the course of justice - all of which are criminal in orientation and where there is judicial complicity (d) misconduct in public office. Unfortunately, many people subscribe to the "ivory tower" of Human Rights that, where there is a failure of a fair hearing, that article 6 means the issue becomes a "civil" human rights issue - for which we should provide mansions to those who practice human rights law. That is a digress of the rule of law as the issues are correctly criminal and will lead to and involve (a) organised crime; (b) corruption of others to include the judiciary who are supposed to be independent but not that independent! their function is to (i) apply the rule of law (thereby ensuring their independence) but currently engage in "stealing a march" tactics by complicity with lawyers to (ii) not apply the rule of law when it is applicable - issue of defamation, malicious falsehood when the case stated does not appear in the judgment and (iii) applying law which does not apply ie asking people who are not patients to become protected parties under mental capacity legislation thereby ensuring an appeal process and defamation, malicious falsehood on a party. So, there you have it - there is no difference between law and justice - the correct application of the rule of law IS justice and it commences upon acceptance of the writ in court which places both/all parties on an "equality" premis before a judge - to do otherwise is a criminal not civil matter and where a judge is complicit it will not be a miscarriage of justice which requires inadvertence or lack of evidence; it will be deliberate which will require the immediate removal of the judge plus prosecution and / also removal via the political domain for unsoundness of mind/ill. Equality before the law means that the outcome from law is justice and at all material times the independence of the judiciary means only the "application of the rule of law", not the ability to not apply the rule of law at all or to apply something not material or relevant to the case.
S J Berwin & Co released a statement on "Legal Week" last week which is false and misleading - S J Berwin & Co are and have been since 1995-1998 and through subsequent court proceedings fabricating information in the legal domain. I was specifically sacked by S J Berwin & Co for blowing the whistle on my then boss Julian Critchlow who was stated to be a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory a legal reference book which, if you are profilled, usually means you have attained some degree of achievement. Not herein the case concerning Julian Critchow - who had no client base - you cannot therefore be a leading individual as a consequence of having no clients or even thorough - I experienced sex discrimination and a complete lack of support from the department and law firm as a consequence of Mr Critchlow's lack of client work and low practice ethics to include his colleague Nicholas Carnell - both of whom were employed by SJB from Winward Fearon & Co who would not permit 'equity partnership'. For a top 20 law firm to enable two lawyers at "partner" level to exist for 3 years with little or no client work or client work suitable at the Top 20 law firm level is highly suspicious and the firm cannot claim they were not directly or indirectly aware of their and my situation in the firm - my charge out fee upon commencement of my not above board contract was £80 per hour rising to £120 per hour. Monthly, I received my statistical performance breakdown and profit costs value as did everyone else - my workload was manipulated. I was seconded to client legal team - Guiness in the £24 b Diageo plc merger with Grandmet and Louis Viutton Moet Hennessy deal for a year - my performance and profit costs were 109% and £146k but nowhere near this level when working for the Construction Law Department. I also worked on the £18m Sandline arbitration - Tim Spicer witness bundles specifically (you can sue if you like, that is SJB!!) for which my work was deemed above board by the Advocacy Unit. My experience of both these lawyers caused personal injury due to severe stress for which I have current proceedings in court on a personal injury case which has been illegally delayed for 6 years, to incude the previous proceedings concerning Masons and my then witness Mr Michael Ford, a barrister and lecturer at Birbeck College for which I also experience a stalking campaign, and the current proceedings are engaged in invading my privacy and others to include my family - the police have been regularly notified of issues and have completely failed to arrest the current judge and respondents' lawyers and deal with the ancillary issues. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority have also been asked to remove or suspend practising certificates, they are refusing to deal. My MP has on several occasions been asked to process the judge for removal from the bench before Parliament - he appears not to have the wherewithall or backbone to deal with the issues and claims to have little or no legal knowledge - ignorance of the law is an issue here at MP level. There are also "intelligence" issues which I have asked a Lord to place before a certain Inquiry and I have not received notification that that has occurred as yet. Concerning issues which may have escalated in Scotland I am experiencing a complete inability to secure legal advice in employment law other than clarification I am currently being defamed and stitched up : I have even written to and telephoned the law society notifying my concerns and Citizen Advice Bureau have had the complete run around too in attaining legal assistance on my behalf: what is going on! I am entitled to legal aid advice and I do have insurance cover to deal with Scottish issues!
For the record concerning the statement released by S J Berwin & Co to Legal Week : "S J Berwin have poor working practices which do not historically comply with good employment law practises or at all, even although they did have an employment law department and may still do so. Nor do they comply with human rights law for which they also had a human rights department and may still do so. Their then head of HR and he may still be in post Keith Wood, operates a clean desk policy and is completely abusive of employment law in the firm. S J Berwin moreover "knowingly" have and recruit problem lawyers at partner level and falsely represent their capabilities and client workload, David Harrell. Concerning my two court actions, rather than settle the cases for which they are fully aware they are responsible, S J Berwin ARE engaged in organised crime and corruption and human rights abuse over two cases in the English courts system since 1998 to current date - issues are escalating and I am experience judicial complicity with Respondents' solicitors acting for Insurers to incude a specific conflict of interest via their Counsel Tim Pullen in relation to Doughty Street Chambers and ex-academia at Birbeck to include Michael Ford, barrister of Old Square Chambers on both cases using three law firms and two legal teams. Mr Ford is engaged in stalking and invasion of privacy / possibly intellectual espionage practices and may also be stalking other ex-academia students in employment law. He appears to use "nocturnal activities" linked to his association with a Bats Society! Mr Ford operates out of London and Bristol and therefore is not naturally prevalent in Scotland/Edinburgh or Inverness or specifically any association to myself on a professional level and is only linked due to Respondents' solicitors and the Ministry of Justice and Professor Susskind on the Masons case and his activities via S J Berwin & Co and/or my ex-academic referee Dr Lindsay Farmer via Glasgow University. S J Berwin & Co are fully aware of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and that my case exists in the courts: there should be being monitored by the Health & Safety Executive - a change that necessarily should occur as a consequence of a case in the courts under the HSatWA 1974 above referred. SJB may also be carrying symbols of good working practices which if they are should be substantively checked via court actions against them in the courts!! ie Investors in People and Two Ticks - Masons had the "Investors in People" symbol when I was employed 1991-1995 but my court paperwork substantively establishes that they did not invest in their people unless they were completely incompetent for which they were deemed valuable contrariwise they preferred to sack competent staff in order to keep incompetent people in post. Perhaps this is something the Equality Commission needs to pick up on : HSE issues and Awards symbiology and cases occurring in the courts - it would certainly be a reason to intervene especially as court documents are "public domain"! A material change in the Equality Bill might also prove beneficial to society and to employees/non-employees(volunteers)/workers/casual workers/gender issues etc etc. s3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (specifically for S J Berwin and the (ex)-Senior Partner David Harrell and Jonathan Blakeley's benefit) means you may not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (deemed to mean volunteer). Other than the Disability Discrimination Act and reasonable adjustment etc or the Human Rights Act 1998 there appears to be little or no "volunteer" - non-employee rights not even via Welfare Reforms and the Office of the Third Sector - currently a Scottish issue that requires competent legal advice/albeit I am competent to deal per se (Maloney/Chalmers/Henderson/Mills -Budd/Atiyah/Whalley/Robertson/Dobbie/Neville/Boyd and others).
S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell and Ian Insley are using solicitors Beachcroft LLP - Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson: who currently refuse to correspond or progress the case before Master Leslie of the Royal Courts of Justice. Master Leslie has been asked to remove himself from the case, I have notified that I am experiencing contempt of court by Beachcrofts Parker/Jefferson which he refuses to progress and latterly he is involved complicitly with Respondents' solicitors on the case and that I am not prepared to comply with any part of his Order nor Respondents' solicitors acting complicitly with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales and my Consultant.
Last night's "Law and Order" produced a statement there is a difference between "law" and "justice" and as usual I was launching a dialetic at the TV - minus expletives!
The answer, to my mind, was no there is not a difference ... because ... we have "equality before the law". As such, the process and the substantive trial are always subject to equality and therefore given law is a "Profession" where lawyers, when involved in the process, must be "educated and trained" to attain professional qualification to any degree from "trainee under articles/traineeship", assistant, associate or salaried partner and equity* partner (*which means the lawyer part owns the firm), all are subject to professional codes of conduct and ethics and have to have a licence known as the practising certificate to practise law. The only exception is a paralegal who may practise with or without a law degree or professional training so long as they are supervised by an assistant, associate or partner: as was the case concerning myself when I worked for the law firm S J Berwin & Co from 1995-1998: I have never done articles or professional training exams known as CPE or done any points based accredition which lawyers are required to do to maintain their professionalism!
Back to "Law and Order" - the difference they allude to may exist but should not exist between law and justice because of professional and ethical training. Where a writ/summons/originating application is issued on a court - all parties named on the writ must engage in the process unless settlement negotiations occur (known as settlement at the courtroom door) to not do so would be deliberate corruption and perversion of the course of justice (as in my Sex Discrimination case) . Where the case is not progressing the issue is (a) contempt of court; (b) obstruction of the course of justice; or (c) perversion of the course of justice - all of which are criminal in orientation and where there is judicial complicity (d) misconduct in public office. Unfortunately, many people subscribe to the "ivory tower" of Human Rights that, where there is a failure of a fair hearing, that article 6 means the issue becomes a "civil" human rights issue - for which we should provide mansions to those who practice human rights law. That is a digress of the rule of law as the issues are correctly criminal and will lead to and involve (a) organised crime; (b) corruption of others to include the judiciary who are supposed to be independent but not that independent! their function is to (i) apply the rule of law (thereby ensuring their independence) but currently engage in "stealing a march" tactics by complicity with lawyers to (ii) not apply the rule of law when it is applicable - issue of defamation, malicious falsehood when the case stated does not appear in the judgment and (iii) applying law which does not apply ie asking people who are not patients to become protected parties under mental capacity legislation thereby ensuring an appeal process and defamation, malicious falsehood on a party. So, there you have it - there is no difference between law and justice - the correct application of the rule of law IS justice and it commences upon acceptance of the writ in court which places both/all parties on an "equality" premis before a judge - to do otherwise is a criminal not civil matter and where a judge is complicit it will not be a miscarriage of justice which requires inadvertence or lack of evidence; it will be deliberate which will require the immediate removal of the judge plus prosecution and / also removal via the political domain for unsoundness of mind/ill. Equality before the law means that the outcome from law is justice and at all material times the independence of the judiciary means only the "application of the rule of law", not the ability to not apply the rule of law at all or to apply something not material or relevant to the case.
S J Berwin & Co released a statement on "Legal Week" last week which is false and misleading - S J Berwin & Co are and have been since 1995-1998 and through subsequent court proceedings fabricating information in the legal domain. I was specifically sacked by S J Berwin & Co for blowing the whistle on my then boss Julian Critchlow who was stated to be a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory a legal reference book which, if you are profilled, usually means you have attained some degree of achievement. Not herein the case concerning Julian Critchow - who had no client base - you cannot therefore be a leading individual as a consequence of having no clients or even thorough - I experienced sex discrimination and a complete lack of support from the department and law firm as a consequence of Mr Critchlow's lack of client work and low practice ethics to include his colleague Nicholas Carnell - both of whom were employed by SJB from Winward Fearon & Co who would not permit 'equity partnership'. For a top 20 law firm to enable two lawyers at "partner" level to exist for 3 years with little or no client work or client work suitable at the Top 20 law firm level is highly suspicious and the firm cannot claim they were not directly or indirectly aware of their and my situation in the firm - my charge out fee upon commencement of my not above board contract was £80 per hour rising to £120 per hour. Monthly, I received my statistical performance breakdown and profit costs value as did everyone else - my workload was manipulated. I was seconded to client legal team - Guiness in the £24 b Diageo plc merger with Grandmet and Louis Viutton Moet Hennessy deal for a year - my performance and profit costs were 109% and £146k but nowhere near this level when working for the Construction Law Department. I also worked on the £18m Sandline arbitration - Tim Spicer witness bundles specifically (you can sue if you like, that is SJB!!) for which my work was deemed above board by the Advocacy Unit. My experience of both these lawyers caused personal injury due to severe stress for which I have current proceedings in court on a personal injury case which has been illegally delayed for 6 years, to incude the previous proceedings concerning Masons and my then witness Mr Michael Ford, a barrister and lecturer at Birbeck College for which I also experience a stalking campaign, and the current proceedings are engaged in invading my privacy and others to include my family - the police have been regularly notified of issues and have completely failed to arrest the current judge and respondents' lawyers and deal with the ancillary issues. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority have also been asked to remove or suspend practising certificates, they are refusing to deal. My MP has on several occasions been asked to process the judge for removal from the bench before Parliament - he appears not to have the wherewithall or backbone to deal with the issues and claims to have little or no legal knowledge - ignorance of the law is an issue here at MP level. There are also "intelligence" issues which I have asked a Lord to place before a certain Inquiry and I have not received notification that that has occurred as yet. Concerning issues which may have escalated in Scotland I am experiencing a complete inability to secure legal advice in employment law other than clarification I am currently being defamed and stitched up : I have even written to and telephoned the law society notifying my concerns and Citizen Advice Bureau have had the complete run around too in attaining legal assistance on my behalf: what is going on! I am entitled to legal aid advice and I do have insurance cover to deal with Scottish issues!
For the record concerning the statement released by S J Berwin & Co to Legal Week : "S J Berwin have poor working practices which do not historically comply with good employment law practises or at all, even although they did have an employment law department and may still do so. Nor do they comply with human rights law for which they also had a human rights department and may still do so. Their then head of HR and he may still be in post Keith Wood, operates a clean desk policy and is completely abusive of employment law in the firm. S J Berwin moreover "knowingly" have and recruit problem lawyers at partner level and falsely represent their capabilities and client workload, David Harrell. Concerning my two court actions, rather than settle the cases for which they are fully aware they are responsible, S J Berwin ARE engaged in organised crime and corruption and human rights abuse over two cases in the English courts system since 1998 to current date - issues are escalating and I am experience judicial complicity with Respondents' solicitors acting for Insurers to incude a specific conflict of interest via their Counsel Tim Pullen in relation to Doughty Street Chambers and ex-academia at Birbeck to include Michael Ford, barrister of Old Square Chambers on both cases using three law firms and two legal teams. Mr Ford is engaged in stalking and invasion of privacy / possibly intellectual espionage practices and may also be stalking other ex-academia students in employment law. He appears to use "nocturnal activities" linked to his association with a Bats Society! Mr Ford operates out of London and Bristol and therefore is not naturally prevalent in Scotland/Edinburgh or Inverness or specifically any association to myself on a professional level and is only linked due to Respondents' solicitors and the Ministry of Justice and Professor Susskind on the Masons case and his activities via S J Berwin & Co and/or my ex-academic referee Dr Lindsay Farmer via Glasgow University. S J Berwin & Co are fully aware of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and that my case exists in the courts: there should be being monitored by the Health & Safety Executive - a change that necessarily should occur as a consequence of a case in the courts under the HSatWA 1974 above referred. SJB may also be carrying symbols of good working practices which if they are should be substantively checked via court actions against them in the courts!! ie Investors in People and Two Ticks - Masons had the "Investors in People" symbol when I was employed 1991-1995 but my court paperwork substantively establishes that they did not invest in their people unless they were completely incompetent for which they were deemed valuable contrariwise they preferred to sack competent staff in order to keep incompetent people in post. Perhaps this is something the Equality Commission needs to pick up on : HSE issues and Awards symbiology and cases occurring in the courts - it would certainly be a reason to intervene especially as court documents are "public domain"! A material change in the Equality Bill might also prove beneficial to society and to employees/non-employees(volunteers)/workers/casual workers/gender issues etc etc. s3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (specifically for S J Berwin and the (ex)-Senior Partner David Harrell and Jonathan Blakeley's benefit) means you may not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (deemed to mean volunteer). Other than the Disability Discrimination Act and reasonable adjustment etc or the Human Rights Act 1998 there appears to be little or no "volunteer" - non-employee rights not even via Welfare Reforms and the Office of the Third Sector - currently a Scottish issue that requires competent legal advice/albeit I am competent to deal per se (Maloney/Chalmers/Henderson/Mills -Budd/Atiyah/Whalley/Robertson/Dobbie/Neville/Boyd and others).
S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell and Ian Insley are using solicitors Beachcroft LLP - Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson: who currently refuse to correspond or progress the case before Master Leslie of the Royal Courts of Justice. Master Leslie has been asked to remove himself from the case, I have notified that I am experiencing contempt of court by Beachcrofts Parker/Jefferson which he refuses to progress and latterly he is involved complicitly with Respondents' solicitors on the case and that I am not prepared to comply with any part of his Order nor Respondents' solicitors acting complicitly with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales and my Consultant.
posted by Lesley McDade at 2:03 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home