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 ...
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 ...
posted by Lesley McDade at 3:08 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home