Obituary

Tony Bunch of ex-Masons now Masons Pinsent dies.

Epitaph should read - "we took it on the chin".

He could have settled, but chose not to.

Legal Week article 23/10/09 by Claire Ruckin - Pinsents mourns death of long-serving partner Bunch" (click here)

Also, notifying I have asked for the arrest of my MP Gavin Strang for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office - reason "omitting to act" and claiming he has an inability to deal with legal issues - when he has been requested to seek advice from the Attorney General's office, specifically, Baroness Scotland.

"23 October 2009

Thank you for your emails concerning your previous employment. As you may recall, I have indicated in previous correspondence that I am afraid I am not qualified to give legal advice on a case of this sort. I have also said that I am afraid that I would not envisage such a case being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons or a Select Committee." signed Gavin Strang MP

Gavin Strang MP has failed to act over a period of 6 years on my behalf on this issue in the House of Commons at all. I have had one face to face meeting with him and he got up showed me out of the Portobello library where he was holding surgery. As such, we do not have a democracy at all - unless others are prepared to deal with this issue before the House of Commons.

I have also received a letter from the Queen's Remembrancer, Master Steven Whittaker, notifying his refusal to remove Master Leslie from the bench concerning my case where it is evidentially certain the Master is engaged in organised crime and corruption and is complicit with Alison Parker of Respondents' solicitors.

I have asked the Police for an appointment to deal over the last week or so and again just prior to this post, I am still waiting. The requests are to arrest 4 judges of the Royal Courts and to also arrest Gavin Strang MP for conspiracy to pervert/sion of the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office.

For the moment there is a stay on my proceedings and Master Leslie seems to think I should appeal his decision. There has been no DECISION and especially none that I was inter partes before him upon hearing pleading and evidence or to my knowledge ex parte. I have no knowledge of being on the warned list or a date given to appear in court. I have, however, appealed his ORDER of July 2007 before Mr Justice Hamblin (in writing) and Mr Justice Mackay (in person) in Court 37 on 11 February 2009. I did specifically ask for (a) an appeal; or (b) a judicial review; or (c) pass the papers to the criminal division - issues are beyond all reasonable doubt. I moreover requested the Metropolitan Police by email to pick the court papers up from Mr Justice Mackay: I am unaware they did so.

There are serious public interest issues on my case papers especially concerning the profile of David Shapiro, who represented Coulson in Watergate, and is also involved in a case against the American N azi Party all of which are discoverable due to my attending an in-house seminar in 1997 at S J Berwin & Co. The seminar was videod and I received David Shapiro's profile. I made representations from the floor also on video, and asked why Mr Shapiro was undermining the judicial system of England & Wales. As a paralegal, I was required to provide feedback - which I did on conscience: the feedback was contrary to the promulgation of the Woolf Reforms which eventually became the Access to Justice Act 1999. Issues were therefore "known" that ADR was NOT promulgated properly in society, nor safe and just in society, via the Woolf Reforms in 1997 and were remiss. David Shapiro passed me a note upon reading my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (in which I also refer to him as research material) - "I have the making of a true academic" - this was passed to Mr Justice Mackay on 11 February 2009 and specifically used to trump Master Leslie's representation - "no real prospect of success" with complete lack of response to a declaration of impartiality request (the Lord Chief Justice oversees the Masters of the Royal Courts - Lord Woolf was the ex-Lord Chief Justice and Professor Richard Susskind IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - hence the need to make the request) and reference to article 6 of the HRA 1998 and the right to a fair hearing - Master Leslie refused to process contempt of court requests against Alison Parker (for invasion of privacy which was evidentially certain before him due to entrapment as well as contempt of court request concerning Paula Jefferson for refusal to accept NHS correspondence relevant to lifting a stay on proceedings), at this juncture the Master had turned off or never turned on recording equipment (which was normally on at previous hearings) and asked Ms Parker to agree to his stance - which she did do. He moreover asked her to prepare a note of hearing which was substantively inaccurate and omitted the piece of paper across the desk issue (whilst I am holding it as evidence) to which he claimed her note was accurate - this latter event established with certainty that Alison Parker/Beachcrofts are involved in organised crime upon my litigation, for which I am unable to secure an appeal, judicial review or pass over to the criminal division, nor remove the judge via the Senior Master or my local MP in Parliament. Master Leslie also claimed not to know who Susskind is within judicial ranks - highly unlikely! The Solicitors Regulatory Authority are informed and refuse to deal. The Police are informed and I am currently awaiting an appointment.

The relevance is that both Masons (including Tony Bunch) and S J Berwin & Co and others across 3 litigations could have settled at any time. They chose to engage in organised crime and corruption.

Tony Bunch is not an intelligent or good man - he is "evil" as are those who surround him. Under cross-examination as the Managing Partner he claimed the authority he used to transfer me was the contract. Upon request to be specific as to the clause in the contract, there was silence. This was necessary information as the operating clause was the disciplinary clause and there was only a right to not warn, warn or sack but not transfer making the his/Susskind's/the firm's stance UNLAWFUL - there did not exist an EXPRESS term to effect a transfer, the suspension was lifted I was expected to return to post BUT NOT TRANSFER elsewhere. Professor Richard Susskind averred in pleading and cross examination that his decision to sack me was a "management decision". Not according to Tony Bunch, the Managing Partner. Ms Anne Molyneux, Ms Siobhan Cross and Ms Cathy James are the reason for the cover up and Ms Molyneux stated to the Tea lady Diane "there is blood all over the walls" after departing my disciplinary hearing prior to Susskind's hearing. I have experienced a severe impact on my LLB degree studies as well as my legal career which extends now to some 16 years. I do wonder what the impact of Mr Bunch's death is on my life now AND EVERYONE ELSE - the Judgment of the Appeal Court before Mr Justice Morrison is a malicious falsehood - and there is no reference to case citation, legal arguments on the ultra vires doctrine or contractual reference as evidence (because there is a cover up instead) - I am still experiencing an inability of the courts to process my court actions - WHY?: it cannot be because Cathy James has a loud voice, and is incompetent in post and knowingly so. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux does not comply with company policy and nor does Cathy James. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross cannot switch on their computers in a specialist computer technology law firm because it is only an ornament on her desk. The issue must relate to money in some form. Why did the firm not hand Cathy her bin liner, as well as Siobhan Cross - she was only a replacable salary partner. As for Anne Molyneux how much was her equity in the firm's partnership actually worth - under the Partnership Act at the time, all equity partners are "jointly liable" and technically still are - the issue is therefore fraud (especially if they have not notified Bankers re borrowings/loans etc they are involved in litigation - they did deal with the issue in-house via Neil Biggs and presumably they did not notify insurers. All lawyers including Tony Bunch were referred to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors and should have been struck off with practising certificates removed (Jane Betts-Kamlesh Bahl/Jill Andrews news blackout issue re bullying at Law Society appears relevant - my case papers were eventually "flooded" with no apparent consequences to lawyers!) (Contra the position with S J Berwin - the second litigation they eventually notified Insurers - so I don't quite understand why Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson are not objective to Insurers and not their clients. There has to be something more important ...)

In 1993 I wrote my first law essay at Birbeck College on ADR for studies in Legal Systems and Legal Methods which was lectured and tutored by Dr Lindsay Farmer, prior to my dissertation in 1997 which secured my "Hons" LLB Degree and which Dr Farmer was the second marker with Professor Nichola Lacey as lecturer in Jurisprudence. I appear covered up ever since, with ex-academia, ex-Masons and ex-SJ Berwin ongoing in my life since 1993 onwards.

I am moreover concerned that Gavin Strang MP is failing to do as I ask of him democratically and is also using the word "afraid" several times in his correspondence.

There is a general pattern across my 3 litigations in England & Wales court systems of "omitting to act", which also includes ancillary agency such as the Office of Supervision of Solicitors (Jane Betts and Kamlesh Bahl), Ombudsman - Ann Abrahams, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, the Police and Police Complaints (IPCC), the Bar Council.

Who or what are we afraid of that our judges cannot "reason" simple cases from "cause" to "effect" and I am not "causative" : nor settle out of court if they do not wish to defend the case. WHY THE NEED FOR ORGANISED CRIME AND CORRUPTION including perverting the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office. Perhaps America you can provide me with the intelligence and documentation which no one wants me to secure via discovery process and which I am entitled per se - where no party is settling or the judges "reasoning". (I am aware that ADR came into the UK via ex-President Bill Clinton and that it was global - I do wonder was that Monica/Bill scandal convenient or inventive to keep something off the front pages). I clarify there has been NO DECISION of MASTER LESLIE: I have APPEALED the ORDER only of MASTER LESLIE. I expect to win my case and/or deal with it via the criminal division where I will be entitled to a full team of legal aid expertise whether I want it or not. Therefore, will the Police now make the necessary arrests - people should not be "afraid" when litigating.

Pope John Paul's message to the world was "Be not afraid" - I am not afraid, I also have a sunny side of the street disposition as my inherent nature.

NB: If anyone is experiencing throat infection and a day or two exhaustian (especially if you are involved in a case in court and/or a litigant in person : please buy a bottle of unperfumed anti-bacterial gel hand wash (approx 99p in good chemists). Use to disinfect your toothbrush (just a little bit), then apply toothpaste and brush teeth - you need to know this as an anecdote: as you are no doubt being assaulted, experiencing trespass and bugged with an invasion of your privacy.

Please also be aware that certain people in society use "animism" to appear attractive, when their agenda is anything but. The deception is debilitating if you are not aware of the reason why or the need for entrapment per se - however, when you are aware, it is a bit of a hoot as the issues unfold and the play is performed before you - you are also likely to experience issues during the night time (ie nocturnal) it is a form of bulling - it is harrassment and intimidation especially when you have a case in court. Be aware of how you discuss this with your GP as it can have severe consequences which it is designed to have ...

Lawyers do not need to bug you or invade your privacy when they can do "discovery", where each party shows the other their documents and decides what to present to the court. If, however, the otherside have no case - then they are likely to engage in subversive activities to construct one : it is up to you what they get to have in order to construct their case, but expect everyone you know to experience an invasion of their privacy too.

My question to America is - the Watergate cover up via Nixon - was it a Master Plan to undermine the judicial systems of the global world especially "the Rose of Democracy" England - thereby creating a lowering of standards in society contrary to reasonableness, ie perverse, degenerate, outlandish, bullish, excessive, corrupt such that eventually we would have WW III. (I did just recently watch the David Frost/Nixon/Watergate - Coulson film and may buy the documentary - it was well acted, alleged 7 names, was less than thin on substance but extracted a apology - for what exactly on substance)! David Shapiro stated 6 names, I recall his and Irwin but do not know whether this relates to the legal team or Watergate scandal - there are 4 names on the video tape I made my representation on - "why are you undermining the rule of law in the UK" - I have tried but failed to get a copy on discovery in the second litigation against SJ Berwin & Co. David Shapiro might like the opportunity for another David Frost interview! I would like the opportunity to cross-examine him too, especially as my perception is ADR in the English legal system meant the Iraq War was a decoy - for which I expect to put Tony Blair in the Hague as a war criminal. I do appear to be being covered up, but can only hazard a guess /surmize as to the reason why. I am not afraid of the reason. The issues are public interest.

POST OFFICE - MONOPOLY - DEMOCRACY

Attending a conference in Berlin in 2008 I discussed the "future of trade unionism". I suggested TU buy shares/talk shop with shareholders who want profits + dividends = employees good conditions + wages. Shareholders are better placed to deal with management if there is an obstacle. Tesco and Tesco Express are successful, Royal Mail + Post Office seen to fail as "retail/service orientated" organisations: why not headhunt/second Tesco executives! A MONOPOLY can exist in a DEMOCRACY : no need to privatise for competition -IMPROVE not CHANGE a good organisation +maximise postal delivery to everyone by the next day = SOCIAL INCLUSION, ANTI-POVERTY, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY, ANTI-DISCRIMINATION re Gov policy. Questionnaire JOE PUBLIC on back of Xmas mailing dates form for feedback + ideas. DHL service took over 2 weeks to receive = not competition!

BNP (Straw) and BBC Debate / Moot

My neutral stance on Nick Griffen/BNP debate : is he or any member of his party on the expenses scandal list? Expected Alex Salmond (SNP) and Harriet Harman on the panel - would have been a hoot. Not impressed by Straws at all nor "conspiracy ...theorists and fantasists" remark - was BNP debate keeping something else off the front pages eg www.lesleymcdade.blogspot.com. I did consider that Nick Griffen did have a point but that he is manipulative and that his formulation and articulation of the point needs some more work. He appeared to be arguing a stance akin to say a Red Indian in America, a Maori in New Zealand or an Aborigine in Australia, ie that eg the English as an indiginous people in the UK are in a minority where they are actually the majority. But the point I really think he was trying to make is that the Race Relations Act 1976 (I think) refers to the indiginous peoples of the UK as "British", there being no English, Scots, Irish, Welsh RACE via statute. However, there is case precedent that I am aware of BBC v Soutar (or Soutar v BBC) where the judges made the quantum leap and "CREATED" the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish race argument - albeit case precedent is supposed to be "DISCOVERED" not created as ratio decidendi - thereafter being binding in all future time. The statutory legislation is therefore out of cinq with Race Relations laws as I think the point NG is making is that you have more rights being a British muslim or British Jew, etc than you do being a person who is indiginous English. There seemed to me to be a need for NG to widen the scope of the argument as it becomes confusing - is he "British NP" or "English NP" or both. The widening of the scope is necessary because the English are not yet devolved properly as they do not have their own Parliament in England - technically Westminster is actually the UK Parliament or "British Parliament". It seems to me that until the hole in the line management of the Parliamentary structures ie,

EU

UK (Westminster)

Devolved
Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish -- AND ENGLAND

NG has got a point because the English are politically under represented as a people.

Dealing with the Line Management Structure issue would remove some of the issues from NG and also ensure that there was proper cross-party representation for the English, as there is Scots, Northern Irish and the Welsh.

However, it is probably that NG has a point but it comes across badly. I was also appalled that as a person who is elected that he would be subjected to the vitriol and pilloring that occurred (during the debate and subsequently in the press afterwards - he is human and you did not turn on Straw who deserved some attention too). I was moreover appalled to see Jack Straw join in rather than say "stop this" - bear in mind he was happy to haul out the "holocaust" issues and I was most displeased to view it, but it appeared tasteless while a human being was averring categorically I did not represent this, that and the other and appeared to be defending himself from accusation, with further slating in the next days paper. You cannot have your cake and eat it - in relation to civilisation. Yes, have a debate : but don't use the word "holocaust" and then do exactly what you appear to be reviling about the holocaust - attack of a human. Yes, I am fully aware NG is coached, expects that sort of treatment, yes he may actually have a political point / legislative point but maybe folks should take another look at the debate video - it ain't pretty under scrutiny : I did, however, appreciate the dignity of the two females on the panel.

Lastly, Barack Obama is "surprised" he got the Nobel Peace Prize. If you earned it, you would just say "thank you ...", the Nobel Peace Prize should never come as a surprise, its a recognition of a lifetimes achievement / genius".

Review or Codification

I have just received my two doorstop tomes comprising the Lord Gill "Review" of the Scottish Legal System. I will do a line by line analysis, however, I did a spot check this morning - all 5 minutes it took me, to establish the Review is a complete failure.

Why:

(a) there are three references which run contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 - there is no such thing as a litigated case having (i) "no real prospect of success" - there is supposed to always be a judgment, necessitating a trial prior to determination of the success or not - organised crime via complicity of judiciary and (lack of independence)/Respondents (lawyers) anyone. Litigation is a win:lose scenario and all parties have "equality before the law" - the Plaintiff issues the WRIT, the Defendant defends (and counterclaims): there may be third parties. This clearly indicates that Human Rights abuses are designed into the system as procedural nonsense! Because of equality before the law - parties to a litigation always start with a 50:50 chance of winning, which goes up or down in relation to truth - bear in mind both / all parties are required to provide a signature to a statement of truth upon issuing a writ!
(ii) unmeritorious cases - there is no such thing as an unmeritorious case - someone has to win and someone has to lose. The system should not abuse any party when they have "equality before the law" and article 6 of the Human Rights Act. That does not follow that the JUDGMENT cannot say that there was a lack of merit in one parties case as a substantive issue, thereby highlighting the FAILURE of the STANDARD of REASONABLENESS that is EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED from a CIVILISED - SAFE AND JUST SOCIETY!!!
(iii) vexatious litigants - there is no such thing as a vexatious litigant - everyone has the right to a fair trial, which requires a trial and judgment - someone has to lose!

(b) the Woolf Reforms are in the report - Lord Woolf is DEFICIENT IN INTELLECT - he is focused on costs - NOT Justice. The important feature in a Justice system is JUSTICE not costs. You have had my research on Woolf since 1997, I have lobbied since 1997/98 to date including even requesting the arrest of Arlene McCarthy MEP for misconduct in public office for failure to do a democratic processing of my response to the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle concerning the Directive on Mediation, ie the "Competition model" (where ADR DOES NOT feature in the legal profession or judicial system at all, but in its own backyard). Dr Farmer had my thoughts on ADR as early as 1993 and the first year of my LLB degree concerning the topic of 'Legal systems and legal methods' in the English legal system: it was 100% accurate for which I got the really good mark of 50%.

(c) there was a small section on processing a case through the courts - they managed to get no (iv) right out of five options. The word "summary" should not feature in a system which provides "Judgment" and therefore "reason" and therefore "natural law" - some folks just need to get real. I would normally expect to see "pleading" as the no (i) feature in a litigation case - but take a look for yourselves - you really do need to read this document.

These little issues are swamped however, by finding ADR is still in the system with the benefit of my knowledge (which you keep trying to cover up). No wonder the lawyers are ASTONISHED (see post referred below). If ADR is in the judicial system then you are in material BREACH of the TREATIES OF EUROPE. Why, because article 6 (known as the Loyalty Clause) enables European law to pass to the national/domestic courts. The methodology used to be called (Article 177 preliminary references - and the last time I looked it was called Article 234 preliminary references). Upon issue of a WRIT, there is a presumption that every European CITIZEN can access justice via the European Court of Justice via an article 234 preliminary reference which is a question sent to the ECJ from the national/domestic court and the answer is sent back to the national/domestic court for inclusion in that court levels judgment. It is discretionary at the Court of Appeal, and AUTOMATIC at the House of Lords. By the judiciary directing a case to ADR or for the parties to consider it having issued a writ, there is a fundamental breach of the Treaty. I asked earlier WHAT IS THE CRITERIA IN THE SCOTS LEGAL SYSTEM FOR SENDING A CASE TO ADR (MEDIATION)/IDS/INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT/RESOLUTION?

It is also being promoted as a REVIEW not a REFORM of the Scottish Legal System - so why is Woolf a feature! Besides, prima facia there should never be a review of the Scottish Legal System other than for the purposes of Codification - so call a spade a spade - there are quite a lot of case precedent references in the footnotes - so why use the word "Review" when there appears to be a "codification" exercise occurring. The reason why you never have a review is because Judges are supposed to "reason", thereby ensuring the system is always under review! However, if you have "Reformed" the Scots Legal System then say that, but don't call it "modern" or "modernity" when it is actually organised crime and corruption. You don't expect to see "abuse" designed into a system especially not when prevalent law is the Human Rights Act 1998 - albeit if you need to use article 6, then the real issue is criminal not civil - perversion of the course of justice! No need to build mansions using an ivory tower approach.

PROGRESS UPDATE RE COURT CASE IN THE ROYAL COURTS

I have requested the Police to arrest, charge and prosecute 4 judges of the Royal Courts for (a) perversion of the course of justice; (b) (gross) misconduct in public office - I am awaiting an appointment with the Police to go through the evidence. I am not expecting these judges to be standing in the dock alone - the case papers go back to 1993, Ms Molyneux, Ms Cross, Ms James, Professor Richard Susskind, Mr Michael Ford, Dr Lindsay Farmer, Nicholas Carnell, Julian Critchlow, Ian Insley, David Harrell, David Shapiro, all judges on 3 litigations to include Respondents' solicitors - Kingsford Stacey, Davenport Lyons and Beachcrofts LLP - Ms Alison Parker, Ms Paula Jefferson and Mr Steve Masson and the others Marie Van der Zyl, Susan Kelly and Robin Shaw. I am also expecting my MP Gavin Strang to be questioned concerning his absolute inability to act on my behalf as my constituency representative, and I am expecting a complete focus on the activities of Lord Straw and Cabinet members concerning my court actions and a complete failure of democracy and/or rationality. I am also expecting to put Mr Tony Blair in the Hague. (I am concerned that Gordon Brown PM who was the "opposition" in his own party to the Iraq War alongside Claire Short and Robin Cooke) has no ability to ensure that his MP Gavin Strang is seen to behave according to democracy when there are clearly "intelligence" issues in my court action which are public interest issues, given my research and that Professor Richard Susskind holds public office. I am also concerned that I am clearly experiencing defamation and malicious falsehood via judgments of the courts in England across 3 litigations. I am moreover very seriously concerned that my case has been stayed for 2 years causing a serious civil liberty issue and that I am unable to comply with an Order of the court on the premis I would put every woman in England at risk of being placed under a mental capacity act as a protected party WHEN NOT A PATIENT! The judge is refusing to remove himself from the case, the Senior Master is refusing to remove him and my MP has not removed him via democratic process. I am expecting the Police to now act - bearing in mind their persistence and pattern of "omitting to act" across 3 litigations in England - approximately 14 years now: the issues are organised crime and corruption - I was therefore not surprised at the content of the Lord Gill Review - given my case papers and research already establish AS EVIDENTIALLY CERTAIN - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - the methodology used in the English Legal System. I did argue before the Court of Appeal and specifically Mr Justice Gibson (MI5) and Mr Justice Mance (now Lord Mance - who was silent throughout), an article 177 preliminary reference which was blocked by Mr Justice Gibson using Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] to which I argued article 6 of the Treaty of European Union (the "loyalty clause"). I left the court stating Mr Justice Gibson was "despicable" - I did not wait to hear his prepared judgment, and slammed the door of the court behind me. I have a taped transcript from Mechanical Engineers transcribers with lots of gaps in it (but not the judgment part) - how convenient that I wrote Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] on a piece of paper and had been doing some reading on the European Treaties at that time, and was therefore aware of the article 6 'loyalty clause' issue. Mr Justice Mance, having said absolutely nothing, handed me back his bundle of pleadings and evidence - which I still have marked up in his pencil!

If there is a failure of intelligence/nouse by the Judiciary then it is relevant to Senior Judiciary - Lord Woolf (Lord Chief Justice) was under Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor) whilst Professor Susskind was and may still be (IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice). Given my case establishes that his arse was whipped by a legal secretary in a disciplinary hearing, and subsequently by me again as a paralegal in court without having done the LPC, and he clearly cannot determine a contract or legal point when his firm designed and refined the contract, such that he has to organise to cover up 9 pages of pleading in court to focus on effect but not cause (rather than settle), plus corrupt willingly or otherwise my witness Mr Michael Ford (ex-Birbeck tutor in Employment law and ex-Doughty Street Chambers) who failed to attend, and has been upto no good ever since, neither Geoffrey Robertson QC, who was also reported to the Bar Council at the same time as all other barristers - there is a real and serious conflict of interest on my current court action via his Chambers for which Respondents' solicitors refuse to correspond AT ALL let alone apologise ...

Cases don't corrupt themselves ... there is no issue that I am experiencing a "miscarriage of justice" across 3 cases ... activities are deliberate, concerted and by design - the purpose is not necessarily illuminating.

I legitimately passed a piece of paper across the desk to Mr Justice Mackay on 11 February 2009 to trump Master Leslie's piece of paper that illegally crossed the desk with failure of declaration of impartiality and entrapment of Respondents' solicitor Alison (nosy) Parker for complicity with the judge plus invasion of privacy issues. My piece of paper was sent to me by David Shapiro upon sight of my dissertation in 1997 "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". It says, "I have the making of a true academic". So why does Master Leslie's piece of paper say, "no real prospect of success".

I have already won 3 out of 4 issues in Respondents' pleading : I am not (a) out of time in issuing my writ; (b) I am not a vexatious litigant; (c) I am not engaged in procedural abuse - all issues were bog standard items that lawyers/barristers use per se on the hope that a judge might pander too them - in this case they dropped them upon my arguments against in skeleton arguments before the court. They have provided 3 case precedents in their arguments which are not at all relevant to the issues - but I don't have a problem with that - someone has to lose the case! Respondents' remaining case is a request for "Summary judgment" - only the writ was issued in Nov 2004, it is now Oct 2009 - 5 years later the SUBSTANTIVE TRIAL ISSUES need to be dealt with - they are surely NOT complying with the Woolf Reforms in England AT ALL or even CPR Rule 1: if Respondents don't want to participate, then the issue is contempt of court, obstruction of the course of justice, perversion of the course of justice - there are two contempt of court requests in pleadings against Respondents' solicitors: Parker and Jefferson. If they don't want to defend the case - then the Judge requires to provide judgment plus enforcement. There is now a request to arrest, charge, prosecute for perversion of the course of justice - civil liberty issue is outstanding at 2 years now: Respondents' solicitors have no right not to accept NHS correspondence - they do have a right to challenge it (IN COURT OF COURSE): they are doing neither, save acting conspiratorially with the Official Solicitor for England and Wales and Consultants - theirs and mine, and the Judge.

The point of the above is ... if this is what I have experienced over the last 14 years in the English legal system due to the Woolf Reforms ... then guess what has just been incorporated into the Scottish "Review", to include a new personal injury court ... What you have got is a small codification exercise plus the Woolf REFORMS!!! I will line by line analysis to see if and what the "review" is shortly, bearing in mind it is disguised as a 600 page two tome report!

When the police are ready ...

RETROSPECTIVE RULES OR HUNG PARLIAMENT

This story has been surfacing over a few days now concerning the expenses debacle in the Westminster UK Parliament. My choice of morning radio station for the last two days has informed that the MPs are being subjected to "Restrospective Rules" in relation to their abuse of the expenses scandal and that they are required to pay money back. Letters have been sent out but 3 MPs claim not to have received there's yet and so it went on.

However, I found myself pondering - if we have a democracy then it should be possible to use the rules we already have to deal with any abuse issues: therefore why are we now being presented with information that they need to use "retrospective rules" thereby implying or expressly providing evidence that we do not have democracy, or at all.

Retrospective rules surely is anathema to DEMOCRACY. The issue therefore given all parties are involved is HANG THE PARLIAMENT.

Why are we making new legislation when we have got plenty already on statute and case precedent that is already applicable. Misconduct in public office. The issue is "beyond reproach" and if not ... the judge needs to know why.

The radio informed and I did not quite catch his name an MP - at least one that is - avers "natural justice". Well done - there is nouse in the House of Commons. Just how do you use it.

Epolitix.com

"MPs refuse to pay up

Gordon Brown is facing a growing rebellion, as the daily Telegraph reports that some Labour MPs are openly defying the prime minister's call for them to pay back expenses claims.
According to the broadsheet, some members of the cabinet are also unhappy with the way Brown let Sir Thomas Legg's investigation "run out of control".
The Times also reports that several MPs who already plan to step down at the next election say there is "no chance" they will pay any money back unless the demands are reduced.
And Labour backbencher Martin Salter told the paper that some MPs were so angry they were considering mounting a legal challenge. "

Legal challenge - lets have it then. However, many of you might actually want to take legal advice including the PM who is likewise caught in the scandal, some £12,000+. Try getting a trainee to look into the implications and consequences of banking a cheque - guilty anyone - the police will have the evidence for certain when they come knocking to arrest for misconduct in public office - including the PM! Besides, lawyers might also wish to check the authenticity of Lord Straw as a politician with executive functions in the judiciary and his ability to make new laws or basically do as he likes.

The Guardian was gagged over the last couple of days because a Politician put down a question and I was surprised to learn contrary to my LLB course that there is a Bill of Rights 1688 - specifically detailing "Freedome of Speech" in Parlyiament: that being Westminster - all one line of it. I was also however concerned to read media comment by Geoffrey Robertson QC - and a wee conflict of interest on my current court action in the Royal Courts - for certain, he knows all about "retrospective rules" on that case aka S J Berwin & Co and their completely defunct employment department and human rights department too!

Gagging the Guardian reporting on Politicians - oh the irony given Politicians are causing us to gag too - labels like "rotten eggs"; "pass the sick bucket" spring to mind. Hang the Parliament!

Lord Gill and the Astonished Establishment

On 1st October 2009 'The Scotsman' notified that the Scottish Judicial System had been reformed by Lord Gill - and managed to keep ADR in the judicial system - why?

The essence of the reforms are quite simple, a downgrade of cases to the Sheriff Court by means of two mechanisms (a) threshold and a £150,000 limit to keep cases from going to the High Court and (b) jurisdiction enabling the Sheriff Court - TO DO THE WORK.

Bizarrely, I read that Lord Gill claimed the Scottish courts were "failing" that is until 30th September 2009:

"Our study has satisfied us that civil justice in Scotland is failing. It is failing to deliver justice to the citizen expeditiously, economically or efficiently. Our structures and procedures are wholly unsuited to modern conditions". He goes on ... "They inflict needless costs on the public purse, on the Scottish Legal Aid Board and on the individual litigants at every level. The system's delays are notorious and in some cases scandalous. Its procedural inefficiencies operate against the interests of Justice". I have not as yet got my hands on a copy of the 600 page report - but I rather suspect it reads just like the WOOLF REPORT - I may yet be surprised - I have noted the word "equality" is missing from the articles in the press - an oversight or do we all need to read the 600 page door stop by next weekend or before using the system via writ. (Oh an aside: Elisha Angiolini is a SOLICITOR, but not JUDGE, with Executive Powers! - who is supposed to be in power in Scotland - SNP which is referred to as "minority" Government - hmmm)

Lord Gill - could be spot on the judiciary is that badly performing - but I am not so sure about the use of these words "expeditiously, economically, efficiently and "MODERN" all in the same paragraphs - sounds ever so slightly like the Woolf Reforms INFLICTED on England - the dissimilarity based on rhetoric alone is the words "efficiency" in your system and "proportionality" in the Woolf Reforms. Modern = the system still incorporates ADR - that is not modern that is stupid - you would not want to undermine the rule of law or put it in another way : what is the criteria for a judicial person to remove a case from "access to justice"/their inherent right to Justice in the "interests of justice" - we know this is the judicial discretionary subjective equitable area of the law you see - we would not want folks to be gagged and hidden for using a "public" system of law which applies the rule of law but does not compromise it in anyway!!!. We would neither want folks to be clearly identified as engaging in a cover up or anything - you might have Journalist ambulance chasing instead of lawyer ambulancing chasing!

However, the next paragraph was informative - "Legal insiders were yesterday ASTONISHED that such a damning indictment of the system should be delivered by one of its most senior figures". Astonished, well presumably folks who have been operating in the system for years were not aware that they were processing their cases to failure - it appears it is black and white - only the Judges are not apparently accepting in any way that they are to blame for Yesterday's traditonal justice system controversy necessitating MODERNITY!. Deep joy come Monday morning 05/10/09 - Modernity - the cases are going to whizz through the system - whehey! Well lets hope there is some veritable substance in their - under competition laws we might have to set up a "Real Justice System based on Jurisprudence" - at least deductive reasoning and analysis (but not Philosophy just throw them induction and hypothesis) to deliver justice.

And Lord Gill wants a stop put to time wasting judicial reviews - well - only you know how as Judges (non sequitur anyone) - get it right in the court of first instance and there will be no need for judicial review! Try looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL LISTS AND APPLYING NATURAL LAW (Time element). So the Daily Mail picked up on this as an asylum issue because they were being objective (news) or subjective (feature) on the front page!

Well it looks good, but I am not so sure it is not the impact of the Directive on Mediation which New Labour Cathy Jamieson put in place but Kenny MacAskill did not then engage the brain to stop - I did try, by participating in the Arlene McCarthy MEP Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle (as available below) with subsequent request for arrest for misconduct in public office for failing to process democratically my response therein - did not happen to my knowledge or yet. I would love to believe that the system has improved rather than changed - time will tell.

The other changes are interesting: something to monitor as they embed in; especially the "personal injury" court that is anticipated to be created (anticipating Alison NOSY Parker and Master Leslie are not engaged in this process or anyone else associated with my case in the Royal Courts including specific named academia on this blog). There has to be a reason why my Writ issued in 2004 is still waiting to be heard in 2009 with a request for JUDICIAL REVIEW / APPEAL / CRIMINAL DIVISION before Mr Justice Hamblin and subsequently as heard before Mr Justice Mackay of the Royal Courts. It remains "stayed". Hmmm.

I anticipate there is an ongoing evaluation facility with MODERN JUSTICE ... with statistical data.

As for Tony Blair ex-PM and his being "tipped" for the EU Presidency

NO

Our newspapers spin, spin, spin - we cannot rely on them as source material for research without going behind the story
Our youth are binge drunk and in the gutter of a Friday night or to put it bluntly they are not aspiring to champagne and haute couture. Even Robbie Williams looked good in his pyjamas in Europe - and that says a lot when you look better dressed in the UK going to bed!
Our banks and finance sector have been raided but we were upto our necks in debt anyway- folks keep paying it off - it compounds down not up! Besides some of you may actually end up better off at the end of the year having learned frugality due to necessity + (value added) happier.
Our military - we imprisoned Malcolm Kendell-Smith (have we apologised yet), he only acted on conscience, the Afghans are doing remarkably well without helicoptors etc I see, you too could put a mule in front of a tank - that is not to detract from bravery.
Our judiciary are undermined - ADR or otherwise we have been "invaded": nouse would be good.
Aparently, our hospitals are unclean and we are expecting 90,000 people to hit the system with swine flu and we send a pregnant lady to Sweden because we can't cope!
Politicians - No, No, No - that is quite categorily NO. Even a group of Highland women managed to put "rotten egg", "ROTTEN EGG", "Rotten Egg" across the ballot - I wonder why, they are surely RIGHT. Expenses scandal - you are there to serve the public, not yourselves - misconduct in public office for not being seen to be "beyond reproach" should not translate a need for new legislation of fines and small sentences, ie further serving yourselves and not the public. What was needed was integrity and credibility which at least should have meant constituency elections rather than clinging onto a General Election so that you can claim your gold plated pensions! and serve yourselves again!
The lawyers are jumping off the cliff, and moreover, even if they were corporate psychopaths and not terribly clever, Agency would appear to be using the word "redundancy" to mean "on the scrap heap absolutely". Some might actually have learnt something from the recessionary process but it is an eye opener to find Agency will not locate employment for you - have experienced this one myself too - I anticipate there are no blacklists in the legal domain, just fair recruitment practises in accordance with employment law and welfare reforms etc.

Lets just call a spade a spade! We have been invaded and Tony Blair ex-PM even when notified of it substantively did diddly squit but to continue down the wrong path leading to the wrong outcome which is emblasoned across our press every day but not necessarily using the word spin these days.

And we would inflict Tony Blair - EX-PM on Europe! Can the press establish who the other candidates are that Tony Blair actually might look convincing, credible and with integrity.

PS - I might as well go the whole hog - G4 and IMF are we surprised that we are apparently being either downgraded on the global platform or sent to Coventry. Perhaps we need to take a really good look at ourselves - lets invite the world to Scotland for a Homecoming Gathering and rip the Capital's streets up (or at least bollard the lot to look credible) - is the project Phased at all - it could not have Phased round the Home Coming Gathering - should we be surprised if folks may not wish to invest in our country but elsewhere.

A highspeed 2 hour link to Heathrow from Scotland - we do have international airports in Scotland!, we also have a Millenium City with airport that needs some attention too + bridge link concerning infrastructure projects - we could redo the entire flight paths to take the traffic OFF Heathrow which only needs a new control tower, not a new terminal plus upset the local populace. Besides one huge terrorist alert would be chaos. Greens - the congestion alone would be horrendous; and you are more likely to get planning consent in the backwaters of Inverness, not London. We appear to have an inability to see ourselves outside certain egotistical areas.

Back to the drawing board on key areas would be quite a good idea really.

America - you put ADR in your judicial systems too - you might want to take a closer look and evaluate what's going on over there on issues of Justice too. I am aware it was outlawed in relation to Anti-trust but am not 100% certain of this - besides concerning law you are "disunited" states of America - you might want to look at your Jurisprudence in light of the fact you follow the English common law, as do the Russians, Israelis and other jurisdictions!

I at least aspire to a "SAFE" and "JUST" society, and I "KNOW" what is required and also "WHAT" we currently do not have ... I also know who and why, when and where etc FOR REAL - I just need an intelligent JUDGE on the Bench not oiks!