Judge Anne Molyneux - Prejudice

It would appear that Anne Molyneux, the senior lawyer involved in my being sacked from Masons is now a Judge in the English courts. She has, according to the Daily Mail (20/10/2012), presided over the case of the "boat race wrecker and jailed him for six months" because of prejudice.

Anne Molyneux is the reason why Professor Richard Susskind OBE tried to transfer me from her department unlawfully. He thought he could just make a management decision rather than a contractual decision based on my lawful rights.

What then happened when I sued was a perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office, ie criminal activity designed to corrupt the case in court.

Originally the case was to be heard in December in Stratford but for some unknown reason it was brought forward to Ashford before Mr De Saxe some six months earlier to July 1997 without my giving my lawyer Rolf Stein permission to agree this change, but he changed it anyway. This gave me 17 days to prepare for trial and witness statements and discovery were done by myself because Rolf Stein chose to come off the record two days to trial even although he had his fees paid to date and was holding my barristers fee as well. I could not instruct my barrister Sean Brannigan. Also my house was burgled two days to trial with Counsel's instruction sitting on top of the papers that were emptied from a bag used to load my entire CD collection. No finger prints were left at the scene, the Police took the view it was kids, but the locksmith said it was a professional break-in. Instructions to Counsel are the most important document in the case as they are the game plan for court proceedings. Nonetheless ...

I was contacted by my witness on Friday night before trial and he let slip Respondent's strategy was to deal with the case from the point of transfer only - how did he know this (Michael Ford, Barrister)? Needless to say, he failed to turn up at court as a witness when he was most necessary prescisely because Respondent's Counsel, Bruce Carr, got his way with the judge Mr De Saxe overruling 9 pages of pleadings so as not to deal with causation, the mismanagement catastrophe engineered by Anne Molyneux! ie concealment. Was my witness nobbled by Bruce Carr or was my witness doing the nobbling?

Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross were creating a post of group secretary in the department, myself and Catherine Johnson applied for it. Needless to say neither of us got the post which went to Cathy James, their secretary who did not apply for the post! Both Catherine and I objected to this unfairness and stated that Cathy James was incompetent in post - we were both aware that Cathy James had left a confidential memo in the public network directory as well as other instances of incompetence - she was an accident waiting to happen. But Anne Molyneux could see no wrong in her secretary and no disciplinary hearings ensued against her. False allegations were brought against myself and Catherine Johnson - mine were for gross misconduct and Catherine's were for minor misconduct. As my barrister Michael Ford had argued, saying someone has a loud voice is not gross misconduct and I did not say this in any event, but was up for being sacked because Cathy James had a loud voice which I was supposed to have misrepresented. This allegation was for gross misconduct for myself and minor misconduct for Catherine Johnson I believe. Fairness is not Anne Molyneux's strength nor intelligence. She may in fact be psychopathic as she had sacked 6 secretaries in 3 years as a consequence of her mismanagement of the department and there was a pattern emerging (a) not quite English - ie coloured, or Australian or Scottish (I am actually English with a Scots accent)(b) unfairness based on religous persuasion - English protestant secretaries could do no wrong - she seemed to have a penchant for Roman Catholics.

I was aware sometime ago that Anne Molyneux had become a judge and duly wrote to the Lord Chancellor informing of her involvement in corruption - no reply received. I wrote because of the corruption on the case and its ancillary agencies. I reported all lawyers to the Law Society. After two years of not dealing with the complaint I received a cheque for £200 and a letter stating that the case file had been flooded and was being closed down. I was immediately suspicious not least because they should have asked me to resubmit a copy of the case file - I wondered if there had in fact been a flood at the Law Society or whether someone merely poured water over the file so as not to deal with it. My suspicions were further aroused when it became known to me that Professor Richard Susskind OBE who sacked me was involved in reforms at the Law Society and was on a management committee. Further raised when the Head of the Law Society, Kamlesh Bahl, became embroiled in a bullying allegation against Jane Betts, who was my caseworker at the Law Society, and Jill Andrews was Kamlesh Bahl's acting solicitor - a colleague of Anne Molyneux's and friend. There was then a news blackout at the Law Society on the bullying allegation. But all I can do is be suspicious.

I did report my concerns that a perversion of the course of justice had occurred to Southwark Police who suggested I appeal, which I did and it became certain that a perversion of the course of justice did occur with misconduct in public office by His Honour Mr Justice Morison failing to state five case precedent cited to him in the appeal document in his judgment. The police would not act and the IPCC found no wrongdoing on the part of the police. It was abundently clear that concealment was occurring (possibly Masonic activity) and that there was a conspiracy of silence and a failure to act by the failure to process anything properly all done to save Anne Molyneux's bacon so that she could become a judge, as if the Law Society had actually processed the paperwork properly I feel sure that Anne Molyneux would have been struck off for corruption and never been able to become a judge for the severity of the mismanagement that was occurring in her department all done during my LLB exams.

What I am left to ask is why have I become a victim because the Police would not process my serious concerns of corruption and criminal activity at the heart of the English judicial and legal system.

Judge Anne Molyneux may have got the decision on the boat race wrecker correct and jailed him for 6 months for prejudice (albeit I consider a 6 month community benefit order would have been more appropriate, ie non-custodial sentence), but there is an absolute stink concerning her own prejudices which may be psychopathic and I wonder if she learned her lessons after my sacking or whether she went on to sack others.