Belief, Understanding, Knowledge

I only caught the evening news on this one ... hmmm.

I lobbied government and political parties and media on the Iraq War which I consider was an unjust war.

I was disheartened to see ex-PM Tony Blair's defiance and stance in hindsight. The reason is because he claims his "belief" is that he was justified in going to war. I have a problem with the fact that we went to war on a "belief" and not an "understanding", which is a higher level of intellect OR "knowledge" which is the highest level of intellect. I also have a fundamental problem with Mr Blair's claim that his "belief" was "beyond reasonable doubt". "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a criminal law standard (evidence and knowledge), and "reasonable belief" a civil law standard (belief), neither should be mixed together. (The other civil law standard is "balance of probabilities", ie understanding). Mr Blair and his wife Cherie Booth, Matrix Chambers, are barristers and pupilled under ex-Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine of Lairg and his other "crony" ex-Lord Chancellor Falconer. If issues are "beyond reasonable doubt" then there is "EVIDENCE" which moves the issue from "belief" to "knowledge". Someone is either a very very very poor law student or engaged in criminality per se - SPIN.

Which is my point - a timeline might assist:

In 1993 I wrote my first essay for my LLB Law degree at Birbeck College, London in the topic of Legal Systems and Legal Methods on the subject of ADR ("Alternative Dispute Resolution") for Dr Lindsay Farmer. Dr Farmer graded my essay at 50%. The essay is in law 100% accurate. It is material to the facts that Dr Farmer was educated at Edinburgh University and also that he comes from Fife, Scotland.

In 1993 I was working for the law firm Masons and had a disciplinary hearing due to my boss Carmela Inguanta bullying me concerning workload whilst working in Anne Molyneux's department (property litigation) - I won the disciplinary process which the firm deemed "we took it on the chin", due to procedural nonsense (documents published on blog).

In 1994 another disciplinary hearing was brought whilst working in Anne Molyneux's department concerning her secretary, Cathy James' incompetence at leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy. Moreover, the substance of the confidential memo established that Anne Molyneux was neither complying with company policy either, as an equity partner. It was also established that Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, the other partner in the department, could not switch on computers in a specialist computer technology and construction law orientated law firm. 3 allegations were brought against me for gross misconduct, and 3 allegations were brought against my colleague Catherine Johnson for minor misconduct. Allegations were substantially false to include the third allegation that I had represented to another that Cathy James had a loud voice. A barrister, Mr Michael Ford represented myself and Catherine Johnson in disciplinary proceedings, I did not do "softly softly" as per his instruction but fought: after the hearing Anne Molyneux stated to the tea lady in the toilets - "there is blood all over the walls". The upshot was that I was not sacked and Catherine Johnson was sacked. However, my lawful application of my contract meant I was to return to Anne Molyneux's department and I had no problem with this, other than my boss Brian Gegg was eventually seen to be lilly livered. Mr Ford affirmed that even if I had referred to Cathy James' loud voice, it was not even minor misconduct - somebody obviously wanted me out of the department and firm - given I was the most computer literate and both Catherine and I were doing the majority of the work, my doing the most difficult workload - with Cathy James being seen to be completely incompetent, and as I had put it, "as good as a man short in the department" - it is material that the department were having a go for losing their disciplinary the previous year. They also brought the complaints 40 days later during my LLB exams - I was sitting 3 hour disciplinary, 3 hour exam, 3 hour disciplinary on appeal, 3 hour exam. Eventually I had a 1 1.2 hour disciplinary before Professor Richard Susskind (IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - material information) who claimed to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable in dismissing me because he had made a "unilateral" decision, ie management decision, to sack me, rather than adher to my "bilateral" contract and lawful application thereof. He was moreover fully aware that I was highly competent in the law firm, and also that Ms James, Ms Cross and Ms Molyneux were not: Cathy James should have received a bin liner and show the front or back door, Ms Cross should have had her practising certificate removed, and Ms Molyneux should have been processed for discussions concerning her equity and her practising certificate. Instead, Professor Susskind with the assistance of an in-house lawyer, Neil Biggs and junior lawyers, Ed Goodwyn and trainee Christian Hay and with the assistance of Counsel, Bruce Carr, engaged on a course of conduct of corruption to include the Chairperson of the Employment Tribunal, Mr De Saxe, on appeal Mr Justice Morison (you should note that you cannot see ANY rule of law in his Judgement - yet you can only appeal on a point of law: in the case I used London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman (albeit there were 5 points of law in the pleading which he claimed to have read)). The issue was the ultra vires doctrine - a private law contract does not attract legislation which is outwith the scope of, ie the contract which was intra vires, ie you could only process the application of the rule of law within the four corners of the actual document, and not outwith it. The evidence was the contract. The case then went on appeal to the Court of Appeal Mr Justice Gibson (MI5) and Mr Justice Mance. It thereafter went on appeal timeously the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999 to Lord Slyn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. The £500 petition fee was cashed. The Bishop of Derby said prayers. Bizarrely on a later date, the Bishop of Birmingham said prayers too. The Law Lords refused to hear the case. There were issues of impartiality concerning the law lords. It is noticeable that Lord Hope of Craighead is an alumni of Edinburgh University but is also involved in the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists as is Professor Susskind - somehow there is less than intelligence going on and bear in mind at my disciplinary hearing I am a second year LLB degree student whipping a professor of law's ass (documents as published on this blog)!

In 1995 I joined S J Berwin & Co having been headhunted with a team from Winward Fearon & Co on a £200 m misrep action using document imaging technology in the Official Referees court on a complex litigation: plaintiff, 2 defendents and 7 third parties - we acted for 6 and 7 third party. There was a prototype common provider document imaging system in use amongst parties. Winward Fearon are a very small and nice law firm located in Covent Garden, but how did they get this construction project with IT?! (I do not now consider that this project went to this firm above board as it was more suited to a top 25 London law firm, where it eventually located. S J Berwin is a top 20 London Law firm with a Jewish orientation. (Whilst at this firm Neil Cameron did a report covering my system which was a prototype which I was enhancing whilst supervising a team of four to image 85 lever arch files out of 240 lever arch files in a strict deadline of 5 weeks as set by the judge in the Official Referees court - I met the deadline by days!). Neil Cameron also covered in his report a colleagues UNIX system - I now know that Neil Cameron is a personal friend of Professor Richard Susskind (Facebook). There was therefore an unseen hand in operation and, moreover it was extending due to my litigation against him and Masons - I guess he does not like his ass whipped by intelligent legal secretaries and at this point in time now a fee earner paralegal. My £200 misrep action settled at 6 months, and I was largely dropped by line managment in the firm whilst also being bullied and harrassed by colleagues and other department lawyers. I became unwell during this time and was seconded to a £24 billion global merger and further to client Guinness who were constructing Diageo plc via Grandmet (a Masons client and LMVH). My profit costs were £146k on a £120 charge out rate and my performance was 109% as a fee earner paralegal. I also worked on the £18 m Sandline Arbitration preparing 4 witness bundles for mercenaries to include Tim Spicer re democracy in Sierre Leone: he who could not move equipment around the globe and his life became at significant risk of death. The acting solicitor was Khaled (Colin) Nasir who is a double first from Cambridge/Harvard and it is therefore bizarre that myself, David Shapiro and a Harvard Scholar processing mercenaries are all located in this firm at the same time. (Tim Spicer was bankrolled by America in relation to Iraq). I did fee earner work for Sandline because of the mismanagement of Critchlow/Carnell and their lack of WORKLOAD NONSENSE - don't shoot the messenger! For some unknown reason S J Berwin did not see me as attractive for articles and it is obvious that I was not the problem in the firm. Moreover, S J Berwin appear not to have noticed the ugliness of two cowboys Nicholas Carnell and Julian Critchlow - who latterly was being promoted as a "leading individual and thorough" whilst having no clients (I arranged behind the scenes his move to PFI, but now wish I had not been so considerate) - with no client work, I was given departmental secondment. Mr Carnell whilst appearing to have a very attractive client list as per holiday notes did not actually have any client work/calibre client work for a top 20 London law firm occurring on his holiday notes save one client - which a colleague promptly settled whilst he was on holiday! Get the message. Needless to say I was eventually sacked because I said JC was shit amongst 200 other words - the firm focused on only one word and set in process a retrospective rule so as to sack. My reference states I am honest with integrity. I could not win any of my litigations (because of an unseen hand).

Also in 1997 at S J Berwin a Mr David Shapiro joined the firm setting up his company Jamsendispute processing ADR/mediation. I attended an in-house seminar and was given Mr Shapiro's profile - Coulson and Watergate, Agent Orange, and a case involving the head of the American Nazi party. Acting on conscience and completing "anonymous" seminar forms with my name on them, I provided feedback. I am also on video asking why is Mr Shapiro is underming the rule of law in the UK. ie, I am questioning why a top American litigator in Washington DC is over the ocean processing a concept that compromises the rule of law - my field of study is Jurisprudence, my dissertation is in process (the first draft was done on holiday in Paris Christmas/New Year 1996/7) and suggests the world will revert to savage if the rule of law is undermined. At college, we do subjects, eg "unjust law" and why you should not comply with it, etc. I also wrote the referred above essay in 1993. (I am also following the West Highland Free Press and an ecclesiastical dispute because I know something is remiss in Scotland and Lord Mackay of Clashfern is a (Wee Free!) who previously made headlines concerning Catholic Judges. I therefore definitely KNOW something is up in the British society both Scotland and England and am curious concerning the West Highland Free Press coverage of a significant disruption in their community, whilst doing my dissertation and Lord Mackay's promotion of ADR. (For the record I actually like David Shapiro and he stated: "I am a good kid". He also stated I was experiencing "gross negligence" within earshot. He provided me a note upon reading my Dissertation which includes source references to him: "I have the making of a true academic". So why were the firm treating me so poorly, I was making them profit, I was obviously intelligent - there is unlikely to be an Oxford or Cambridge graduate working as a fee earner at this level in the third year of their LLB degree. I was paid £20,000 (third year LLB +17 years legal secretary experience with shorthand including Dundas & Wilson CS (I coming down in the world working for SJB and Masons) to £22,000 (fourth year LLB + ) a year as a paralegal when others were on £10,000 had LLB degree 2.1, £12,000 LLB degree plus Masters, £14,000 political degree 2:2 + LPC, £16,000 LLB degree + LPC etc. (If I do no work, I get a pay increase, if I do £146k I get nothing - this is most bizarre for a Jewish law firm and I have worked for many Jewish law firms in London as a temp in 89/90!) Since leaving SJB in 1998, and temping in several American Law firms and also Clifford Chance I have not worked in law ever since - am I being sent to Coventry or blackballed or on a black list! Or that unseen hand, or just prejudice by legal agencies in Scotland. I returned to Scotland in 1999. Anyway, getting back to David Shapiro I attended the inhouse conference where he stated he and 5 others brought this Japanese concept to America, I recall "Irwin who is dead" but not the other 4 names - but they are on the video - which I tried to discover on my second litigation and which is discoverable on my third litigation as also the American documents above referred in David Shapiro's profile due to the seriousness of the intelligence issues and treatment at SJB - I do require to cross-examine David Shapiro. The issues are also public interest issues due to the Frost / Nixon issue and Coulson/Watergate. I do wonder why Bill Clinton was running over hear every five minutes at the time. Bill Clinton's administration was responsible for ADR in global judicial systems and legal professions. I am not so sure that the Lewinsky/Clinton sex scandal was anything other than a decoy - I wonder if an inappropriate suggestion was made in that regard, as inappropriate suggestions were made to me by my boss Julian Critchlow concerning my unmarried status which he denied on the second litigation. I did not have a boyfriend at that time and remain unmarried. (There is currently an invasion of my privacy occurring due to my third litigation against SJB and JC/NC/IN which is stayed - info later). Is it a Jewish thing to be subjective when issues get too hot for them, and this is to include references to "holocaust" everytime a Jewish issue surfaces - you cannot hide behind this word all the time especially when you are seen not to have learned your lessons and behaving as nazi's with a small 'n' - SJB did have an employment law department (to which I whistleblew), they also have a human rights department - both departments appear defunct in the firm and Keith Wood out of control as personnel. [I would suggest after having been in the courts for 16 years on 3 litigations and your latest nonsense that you do not use the word holocaust anywhere within my earshot]. The issues concerning David Shapiro are relevant to R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Burr which is a case precedent about political treason, a criminal offence in the UK. The ratio refers to inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom. David Shapiro is a friendly alien, he and Lord Woolf have invaded the kindom of England, now Scotland and most European states where they have a Crown (except Denmark who abstained from the Directive on Mediation process) with a Japanese concept, which undermines the rule of law. It is not the Japanese so far as I am aware as they use the concept in a different cultural sense. It is being used in a Jewish sense - quicker / cheaper (money) than litigation (public) contrary arbitration (private) application of the rule of law. The concept "gags" by confidential agreements and effectively creates a "hidden" society which is contrary to our illuminated society via the public court system and application of the rule of law. If a judge does not reason, then case precedent does not occur, there is then a failure of "ought" and natural law which means law is politicised via legislation as the dominant posited law, ie 'IS' law. We are then democratically unbalanced and at the mercy of politicians and legislation. NB Lord Straw is holding a post of Lord Chancellor whilst not a Judge, but a politician - the issues are constitutional yet no constitutional debates are occurring. Tony Blair and Cronyism.

In 1997 I wrote a Dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (published on this blog). The topic for my LLB degree was Jurisprudence - the science and theory of human law. I received a grading of 2:1. The tutor responsible was Professor Nicola Lacey, who is now at the LSE. It is material that Dr Lindsay Farmer, 3 years later, admitted to being the second marker of this dissertation.

In 1997 I was aware that Lord Mackay of Clashfern had attempted to process ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) when Lord Chancellor and he was pre-cursor the actual Woolf Reforms. Lord Mackay features on the Edinburgh University alumni.

From 1997 - 2009 I have continued to lobby government concerning my research. Tony Blair ex-PM was fully aware of my research in or about 1997-1999. The Woolf Report was processed at University College London, which is next door to Birbeck College -the Senate Library separating the institutions. I lobbied Professor Hazel Genn who processed the Woolf Report providing a copy of my dissertation and urging her to do further research. I did not concur with particular statements in her fifth report as it was clear she was distorting information. I also lobbied Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg as Lord Chancellor. I also notified the Queen of her Government's activities in relation to the law (but cannot say she actually saw the letter via her minions). I also lobbied newspapers who did not publish. I also became "snowdrop (my favorite flower) lobbying via Channel 4 and The Independent chat threads. I can also affirm that I lobbied Frances Gibb at 'The Times' and she asked for an article from me, and I supplied 4, none of which were published. I also lobbied 'The Times' letter's page, and nothing was published. The only article arguing contrary to the Woolf Report features that I became aware of was an article published by David Pannick QC in relation to Skeleton Arguments. At least there was another onto the plot.

In 1999 the Access to Justice Act became law - I was suing Masons and S J Berwin & Co and others in two separate litigations - albeit they are linked. I was experiencing the same pattern of conduct across both litigations, an "omission to act" via the Judiciary and Police. I even had to have two different sets of papers in on the same day concerning both litigations - and I missed a deadline because of it, ie appeal papers before (1) Mr Justice Gibson and Mr Justice Mance and (2) Ms Manley (who allowed only the sex discrimination issue to be processed as a consequence of my being deemed "as experienced as a practising solicitor" (I have not done the LPC).

(It is material therefore that Professor Richard Susskind is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Woolf), and also that my dissertation exposes the Lord Chief Justice's report (ie Lord Woolf). It is moreover material that both these firms are source referenced in my dissertation as processing Alternative Dispute Resolution in England & Wales - a Japanese Concept, prior to the the enactment of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Woolf Report states: "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" in a report entitled "Access TO Justice". How ambiguous - if you don't litigate you don't get justice - what could he be up to in his new regime that will change the landscape for the next century! Not access TO justice, but access FROM Justice - as my case(s) establish as methodology.

In 1999 located back in Scotland, so also was Dr Lindsay Farmer at Glasgow University. There did appear to be an academic haemorrage from Birbeck in 1997. He was by now my choice of academic referee as my personal tutor Emily Jackson, now LSE, was rather shallow as a tort tutor. Dr Farmer is now ex-academic referee.

On 27 June 2000 I received a response from the Right Honourable Mr Charles Kennedy MP affirming that the documents I had sent him were "extremely important" and that he was passing them to Menzies Campbell MP, then holding Shadow Foreign Secretary (I need an investigation of soft furnishings and specifically in relation to judiciary/legal profession people and Iraq and voting). I heard nothing further. I also contacted the Foreign Office when David Milliband MP was Foreign Secretary and running over to the EU when Spain had the seat, not necessarily Lisbon Treaty issue!

During this time Mr Jack Straw MP was Home Secretary, after the 2000 date he became Foreign Secretary - I did not lobby Mr Jack Straw MP. I have never lobbied Mr Jack Straw MP. I am aware that Lord Woolf is head of the Hebrew Society. (I am also aware the Principal of Birbeck College, held Cabinet post - Baroness Blackstone whilst he was in the Home Office seat). I am of the view that if my knowledge was "extremely important" and passed to the Foreign Office via the Libdems then it is likely that it would reach the Minister responsible and action would have had to occur - no one has engaged discussion with me - above board anyway.

By 2002 I was lobbying against the Iraq War and specifically lobbied for Hans Blix's completed report to be provided prior to war. (I anticipate that Hans Blix is going to be interviewed by the Chilcot Inquiry). I was also lobbying that Saddam Hussein was attempting to comply with UN Resolutions and my sources were coming from UK newspapers. I was also lobbying that Saddam Hussein was aged and would only be in power for a few more years in any event. I was also aware that elections in Iraq had placed him back in power largely due to our aggressive stance where he could have been democratically removed. I was also aware by this time of the policy of regime change, change management and change regime in the UK as part of the liberalisation and demokratisation agenda/globalisation and was horrified at the use of the word "regime" coming through government policy in a free society. I was asking change from what to what - liberalisaton/demoKratisation agenda but not democracy. I was growing more and more concerned that we were no longer a democracy in the UK due to ADR. I was also aware that I was apparently covered up - no press would utilise me per se as a voice nor promote my stance in ADR in UK newspapers per se, nor focus on the public profile of David Shapiro or Professor Richard Susskind in relation to my issues. Professor Susskind held public office as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - any scandal associated with a person holding public office should have made front page at this level - the Police were asked to act and process for perversion of the course of justice. Plenty was making front page news concerning the Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine of Lairg and cronyism. I had also sent Cherie Booth my research via Matrix Chambers and it may have been discussed at the kitchen table not the Cabinet table!

In November 2004 I issued my third litigation against S J Berwin & Co and others for personal injury and professional negligence. The case is largely unheard to date and has a two year civil liberty issue on it because Respondents' solicitors Beachcrofts (Parker/Jefferson) refuse to accept two NHS letters - where did they get the authority to not accept them. The case is stayed. I have asked Master Leslie to remove himself. I have asked the Senior Master to remove him and he writes I can appeal the decision - the case is stayed, there has been no trial, therefore there is no decision. I have appealed the order requesting me to become a protected party under the Mental Capacity Act 2oo5 WHILST NOT A PATIENT OF THE NHS. No right thinking person would agree to this and my esteem is being lowered, ie defamation. I have asked the Lothian Borders to police to arrange for the arrest of the Master for (a) perversion of the course of justice; and (b) (gross) misconduct in public office - they have not done so, nor dealt with Respondents' solicitors and/or respondents for perversion of the course of justice whilst being complicit with the Master. I have asked my MP Gavin Strang to seek advice from the Attorney General re how to remove a judge who is of unsound mind/ill/inability to reason objectively. (Someone needs my case not to occur - I can also confirm my Christmas 2009 was spent in a mental health hospital when I am not ill. I am receiving anti-psychotic medication because I am alleged to hold a delusional belief about my court case - not because I am ill - I have filed papers with the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh - but heard nothing, not even an acknowledgment). It is not for the police, lawyers or psychiatrists to presume the outcome of my case - that is for a judge. The othersides case has a conflict of interest on it as notified to Parker at Beachcrofts, no response received, that Tim Pullen, their Counsel, is using his Godolphin Chambers address whilst associated with Doughty Street Chambers ie, Geoffrey Robertson QC. Both Geoffrey Robertson QC and Michael Ford were referred to the Bar Council on the Masons case along with Jeremy McMullen QC, Bruce Carr and Sean Brannigan as someone was nobbling my then witness Michael Ford, barrister who failed to attend or else he was upto no good himself (coward). Mr Ford is now at Old Square Chambers. Professor Lacey is associated with Doughty Street Chambers. Mr Ford and others referred above are currently stalking me and doing intimidation and harrassment in relation to my court case. They are also doing intellectual espionage - obviously I am valuable and intelligent. I am not a spy and do not engage in espionage - I don't need to my field of study is Jurisprudence which requires evidence - its a science not a philosophy!

Respondents' solicitors have enabled an invasion of my privacy and others which is quite serious but the police are either aiding and abetting, too dim to deal, or refusing to act for a reason presumably governmental or something else. Jack Straw has the Triple Crown of the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Justice howsoever unconstitutional - I have a 16 year cover up of 3 litigations and my research! Someone is accountable and responsible.

Someone needs my case stayed. The Solicitors Regulator Authority are refusing to deal with solicitors.

In 2006 I lobbied the Scottish Executive concerning mediation in Scotland. I also lobbied Europe as there was now a Directive on Mediation occurring at European level and I participated in the Consultation paper on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation. There were 27 published responses, my response was aguing against the Woolf Regime model in England. Arlene McCarthy MEP (New Labour) was processing the Consultation Paper but I could not get a democratic process of my stance and she refused to interview me with the only person promulgating another model - the "competition model".

In 2006-2009 I also engaged in 4 volunteering jobs to include the Chair of the Patients' Council at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital in 2008, and I also became a Generalist Adviser at Citizen Advice Bureau in Edinburgh. There is therefore no material "capacity" issue. I can confirm that all 4 volunteer jobs appear to have been infiltrated since notification to the Judge and Respondent's solicitors that I could not claim to have a capacity issue on the case in England. There is concerted and orchestrated practices which have engineered a one lever arch case file currently located with papers at the Sheriff Court, Edinburgh re my current mental health statement. That unseen hand is in operation.

In 2009 I am doing an HNC in Journalism at college. I am experiencing an unseen hand - Farmer, Ford, Weate, Critchlow, Carnell, Susskind, Nasir, Johnson and others, ie Masons, SJB and Birbeck - I am currently suspended because I have said the class is not attractive and some people are particularly "ugly", and used the word "googly-eyed". I have also had an essay remediated 5 times in relation to "celeb" where I have answered the question set, but not provided the outcome the lecturer thought he had set as an outcome. I have asked for independent adjudication twice. It is likely to be a calibre article 2:1 - double first mark currently marked "0". It should have been obvious I am intelligent and humanitarian, and whilst I do like fashion, whether someone has a roof over their head is substantively more important to me over who kissed who. Unfortunately, the college are having some difficulty in processing human rights law properly and have subsantively damaged my coursework, exams and this terms material covering magazines - I wonder why : somebody does not want me to know how to do journalism properly! - is there a real-time issue some folks are trying to cover up.

I am not aware I am persona non grata. My paperwork is not classified so far as I am aware - my court action has already passed private documentation to the public domain as I did do proper discovery on my first and second litigations -I can publish if needs must as I won't be sub judice - my pleading and evidence bundles are in court and seen by Master Leslie, Mr Justice Hamblen and Mr Justice Mackay the later two were asked to process an appeal, a judicial review or pass to the criminal division and Mr Justice Mackay was asked to pass them to the Police, and I also emailed the Police to pick them up from the court!

Somebody wants to lower my esteem amongst right thinking people, such that I am seen to be mentally ill when I am not. (Believe it or not "a sign of neglect is a button missing" - psychiatrist report in court document). I do not hold a delusional belief about my court case and any beliefs can be rectified when the otherside produce their case! The other side are requesting summary judgment - at 6 years we are not exactly speedy. If the otherside don't want to get their papers into court, then they can get their cheque books out instead, as the judgment falls in my favour - it would be nice for accuracy. However, there are public interest issues and intelligence issues ...

TO THE POINT

Tony Blair - ex PM was aware of my research on the Woolf Reforms and the processing of ADR in the UK and globally via Clinton. He was aware of my litigations x 3 and Professor Richard Susskind's involvement in organised crime and criminality - he could have settled but for some reason he chose corruption of everyone I know and moreover folks seem to be happy to be corrupted! I am dealing with the educated and trained - not! He was aware of David Shapiro and the Woolf Reforms he would therefore have been aware of his profile in law. They are located in my case papers since 1995 re Masons and Professor Susskind and since 1998 concerning S J Berwin and others, and my third litigation was issued in November 2004 and remains unheard in January 2010 via a stay on proceedings. S J Berwin were involved in the Woolf Reforms and are aware of CPR Rule 1.

Therefore to my mind - Tony Blair's "belief" beyond reasonable doubt is a decoy - England/UK was invaded and the invasion knocked over the judiciary and legal profession, the press - spin, spin, spin, thereafter the military re Iraq AND A RUSH TO WAR with solidiers not properly equipped or trained WHICH HAS TO HAVE A REASON and then the financial sector via Greenspan whether for good or bad - something CAUSED subprime and ponzi schemes amongst the EDUCATED and TRAINED! Who was the TEACHER? Madoff (America / De Yemin (China) / Raza (India) / Goodwin (UK). Of note is the similarity to the Nostradamus prophecy and I note Tony Blair's "belief" extends to Iran.

To my mind, the Iranians have Alexander the Great, the Great Saladin, for their historical military prowess and I do not know of any recent wars involving the Muslim directly, but correct me if I am wrong, perhaps 9/11. In any event, if the issue is nuclear re Iran then the world would not get to write the next tranche of history. Besides there is a Hansard issue - it is possible to know who all the world nuclear scientists are - they usually get their education via University - we would at least be able to account for those we educate and train as can others. It is a big leap from being a nuclear scientist re energy to weapons! The nuclear village is likely to "know" who's who - there should be a global list - there are no doubt global conferences! Newspapers recently inform Iran is doing business with China. The next Chinese invasion due in the UK anyway is either Easter or Christmas 2010 - "when China sleeps let her sleep, when she wakes God help us" ... the issue is TRADE WITH CHINA (peace) - go shopping, buy pyjamas.

I consider Tony Blair, ex-PM is himself "deluded and that 179 soldiers have been murdered by the state. Tony Blair has failed during office to get a grip on ADR and given he operates in the legal domain, as does his wife, that he cannot claim "belief" and "beyond reasonable doubt" in the same sentence - the issue is not "belief" when you go to war, it is "KNOWLEDGE". Given Hans Blix had a report which would have corrected any errors of intelligence, the failure to wait for the Hans Blix report clearly means that there was a reason or need to rush to war sourcing from America and the UK and Europe and/or that Scotland via Edinburgh University or judicial/legal profession and the Jewish people sourcing from America and judicial/legal profession were collectively engineering the lowering of standards in society to include Europe by compromising the rule of law via ADR, a Japanese concept, but not sourcing via the Japanese but via the Jewish, and that we would have eventually reverted to savage, ie a state of war. To my mind, we did resort to savage under Tony Blair, the Iraq War is merely a decoy and there is no links to Al Quaida established via the press concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq. No WMD either. I can only source public domain information.

I am prepared to state my case to Chilcot should I be called and where possible will make my files available for inspection. My litigations are simple - I should not have been sacked because of the incompetence of Cathy James and the failure of her and her bosses to comply with company policy. I could not care at all that Cathy James has a loud voice. I should not experience sex discrimination in the workplace, nor should I be personally injured by my employers. I should not be sacked for being honest that my boss(es) was shit - if the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary it is mean to be used - and my contract not above board. I should expect lawyers to adhere to the rule of law and I should expect judges to reason in a safe and just society. I should also expect the legal profession to properly regulate themselves. I should also expect academics to be intelligent. I should also expect the police to do their duty whether macro or micro criminality and I should not have to do their jobs for them. I should also, as a very intelligent person, have the lifestyle that goes with it. I am not cause in my court actions and there is a timeous and natural process to law. Lawyers should settle their cases where they are being required to do procedural nonsense and or focus on effect but not cause. At 16 years I require answers of those who are responsible and accountable. I also require 179 soldiers and the Iraqi people to be given answers and responsibility too. I expect Prime Ministers to do DEMOCRACY properly. I expect Justice because it is fundamental to democracy. I expect Equality before the law because it is fundamental to Justice and the Monarch MUST be equal to Her people as custom and tradtion and practise. I expect all citizens of Europe and the UK to be kept safe and just and that peace is the path to follow.

The issue for me as a citizen of the UK and Europe conerning "belief beyond reasonable doubt" and Tony Blair ex-PM : "I don't "BELIEVE" you", I KNOW.

In war, there is pre-war : War : post-war activity. The Iraq War was UNJUST and ILLEGAL

Article The Scotsman by David Maddox on 30/01/10 entitled Tony Blair : I've no regrets over Iran.

Our press does not need to "spin". [Apologies for typos in my first draft I am having to use an internet cafe, so published with typos as time running out - my home computer has been sabotaged twice to date].