COMPLICITY
Complicity is in the media today. Sir Peter Gibson is to head up an Inquiry about detainees who claim they were tortured with the complicity of MI5 and MI6 whilst held at Guantanamo Bay in America in relation to the "war on terror".
Sir Peter Gibson is better known to me as Mr Justice Gibson of the Court of Appeal*. He heard or rather did not hear my case Lesley McDade v Masons sitting with Mr Justice Mance. Mr Justice Gibson gave 1/2 hour for my case before him, blocked an article 177 preliminary enquiry** to the European Court of Justice by using Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] to which I argued the "loyalty clause", article 6 of the European Treaty of Union, which he called the Treaty of Rome. I left the court stating he was "despicable" and slammed my case files and slammed the door of the court room after me. I did not get done for contempt of court. Mr Justice Mance, however, said absolutely nothing for half an hour and handed me back his pencil marked up bundle.
Somehow, it missed them that I had experienced a perversion of the course of justice in both lower courts and it entirely missed them that Cathy James was "cause" and I was sacked because she had a loud voice and was absolutely incompetent leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory for which spurious allegations were made against me, the firm of Masons not liking the outcome of their disciplinary hearings. I was transferred and then sacked by Professor Richard Susskind OBE (Professor DisOBEdient) because I refused to transfer as I was not cause and it was an unlawful request as my contract did not permit a transfer, my having been suspended under the disciplinary clause not a variation clause. Once the suspension was lifted I wanted to return to post, not a transferred position when Ms James should have been held responsible and sacked. My colleague Catherine Johnson was also sacked, but Ms James was deemed "valuable" ... in what way I do wonder.
I did ask for the engineers taped transcript of the court of appeal hearing before Mr Justice Gibson which he agreed to let me have. Needless to say the recording equipment did not appear to capture pertinent parts of the transcript. The blanks did not appear to be in pattern suggesting faulty equipment leaving me wondering was someone playing with the recording button or drowning out using the air conditioning button. Recording equipment in court can pick up rather a lot, but some how my transcript was full of blanks, to include the Martin v Glinware Distributors blocking case precedent and arguments. There was definitely an effort being made to NOT hear my case.
My legal career was shattered by being sacked because of the spurious nature of the allegations against me which were designed to disrupt my legal exams being brought 40 days after the facts - so I engaged in a disciplinary hearings then an exam, appeal hearing then an exam, disciplinary hearing then an exam. Professor Susskind OBE deliberately sacked me in full knowledge I was not blameworthy and was malicious in his actions. He did not appear to like his being whipped in court by a legal secretary either hence the perversion of the course of justice and complicit practises I experienced on my journey to the House of Lords.
The tape transcript proved useful as I did manage to get to the House of Lords. My cheque for £500 for the Petition fee was cashed. The Bishop of Derby said Prayers. Then bizarrely the Bishop of Birmingham said prayers a few days later. Law Lords Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Hobhouse of Woodborough refused to hear my case using blocking case law Lane v Esdaile, a 100 year old case, to deprive me of access to justice, something the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999 said we had - NOT. They also failed to declare a lack of impartiality.
I was aware that Sir Peter Gibson worked with MI5 as I googled their website and put his name in the search engine and it came up. It was just an off the cuff thing but I was looking for a reason as to why I was being treated so shabbily by the court. Sir Peter Gibson is Commissioner for the intelligence services ... but he does not come across as competent nor intelligent and I was by now a paralegal, else he was protecting someone possibly Susskind, Molyneux or Ford: you just could not be that dim concerning the case papers in my case.
I am therefore somewhat surprised that Sir Peter Gibson is heading up this Inquiry and wonder why MI5/MI6 are effectively policing themselves ... perhaps the detainees would be better sticking with their court cases. Ye of little faith ... *the case papers of the court of appeal are published in earlier posts on this blog
** An article 177 preliminary enquiry (now known as article 234) is "discretionary" at the Court of Appeal and "automatic" at the House of Lords. (I also had an article 177 preliminary reference in the House of Lords case papers)
Sir Peter Gibson is better known to me as Mr Justice Gibson of the Court of Appeal*. He heard or rather did not hear my case Lesley McDade v Masons sitting with Mr Justice Mance. Mr Justice Gibson gave 1/2 hour for my case before him, blocked an article 177 preliminary enquiry** to the European Court of Justice by using Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] to which I argued the "loyalty clause", article 6 of the European Treaty of Union, which he called the Treaty of Rome. I left the court stating he was "despicable" and slammed my case files and slammed the door of the court room after me. I did not get done for contempt of court. Mr Justice Mance, however, said absolutely nothing for half an hour and handed me back his pencil marked up bundle.
Somehow, it missed them that I had experienced a perversion of the course of justice in both lower courts and it entirely missed them that Cathy James was "cause" and I was sacked because she had a loud voice and was absolutely incompetent leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory for which spurious allegations were made against me, the firm of Masons not liking the outcome of their disciplinary hearings. I was transferred and then sacked by Professor Richard Susskind OBE (Professor DisOBEdient) because I refused to transfer as I was not cause and it was an unlawful request as my contract did not permit a transfer, my having been suspended under the disciplinary clause not a variation clause. Once the suspension was lifted I wanted to return to post, not a transferred position when Ms James should have been held responsible and sacked. My colleague Catherine Johnson was also sacked, but Ms James was deemed "valuable" ... in what way I do wonder.
I did ask for the engineers taped transcript of the court of appeal hearing before Mr Justice Gibson which he agreed to let me have. Needless to say the recording equipment did not appear to capture pertinent parts of the transcript. The blanks did not appear to be in pattern suggesting faulty equipment leaving me wondering was someone playing with the recording button or drowning out using the air conditioning button. Recording equipment in court can pick up rather a lot, but some how my transcript was full of blanks, to include the Martin v Glinware Distributors blocking case precedent and arguments. There was definitely an effort being made to NOT hear my case.
My legal career was shattered by being sacked because of the spurious nature of the allegations against me which were designed to disrupt my legal exams being brought 40 days after the facts - so I engaged in a disciplinary hearings then an exam, appeal hearing then an exam, disciplinary hearing then an exam. Professor Susskind OBE deliberately sacked me in full knowledge I was not blameworthy and was malicious in his actions. He did not appear to like his being whipped in court by a legal secretary either hence the perversion of the course of justice and complicit practises I experienced on my journey to the House of Lords.
The tape transcript proved useful as I did manage to get to the House of Lords. My cheque for £500 for the Petition fee was cashed. The Bishop of Derby said Prayers. Then bizarrely the Bishop of Birmingham said prayers a few days later. Law Lords Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Hobhouse of Woodborough refused to hear my case using blocking case law Lane v Esdaile, a 100 year old case, to deprive me of access to justice, something the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999 said we had - NOT. They also failed to declare a lack of impartiality.
I was aware that Sir Peter Gibson worked with MI5 as I googled their website and put his name in the search engine and it came up. It was just an off the cuff thing but I was looking for a reason as to why I was being treated so shabbily by the court. Sir Peter Gibson is Commissioner for the intelligence services ... but he does not come across as competent nor intelligent and I was by now a paralegal, else he was protecting someone possibly Susskind, Molyneux or Ford: you just could not be that dim concerning the case papers in my case.
I am therefore somewhat surprised that Sir Peter Gibson is heading up this Inquiry and wonder why MI5/MI6 are effectively policing themselves ... perhaps the detainees would be better sticking with their court cases. Ye of little faith ... *the case papers of the court of appeal are published in earlier posts on this blog
** An article 177 preliminary enquiry (now known as article 234) is "discretionary" at the Court of Appeal and "automatic" at the House of Lords. (I also had an article 177 preliminary reference in the House of Lords case papers)
posted by Lesley McDade at 8:22 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home