Metalipsis and ideas for growth in employment law in UK/Europe
I have been thinking lately about events since 1993/94 to date in my life relating to my three court actions in England, which unfortunately have been three miscarriages of justice, and how I would improve employment law in the UK if I had a chance based on my experiences.
The first case against Masons was about "METALIPSIS" - the reversal of cause and effect. What the judge and Respondents refused to do on the case was focus on "causation" - Ms Cathy James leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory. I was given a warning because I may have (albeit I do not know that I have) had a conversation with Ann Glazebrook - they allege it but they have not proved it took place. The warning was for breach of confidentiality something I could never have done because Ms James breached confidentiality in the first instance. So I should never have been given a warning. Ms James should have been sacked. That would have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately, Masons having chosen the wrong path out of the problem, then asked me to transfer to the float team. Because I had changed my contract from float team to permanent secretary I refused, not least because I would have been bullied in that position and was actually bullied on return to work, it would also have been a demotion or punishment. However, I proferred a compromise that I would transfer to a permanent position, ie that I would transfer. Professor Richard Susskind claiming to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable - at least he believes it - sacked me for refusing to obey an order of the company. He claimed he was making a "management decision", but unfortunately, the decision was "unlawful under contract" as no right to transfer existed on a legal interpretation of events. To say the least it is not reasonable to be sacked for your colleague's wrongdoing and incompetence. I was completely innocent of events.
So you would expect a court action to find in my favour. Not so, respondents had failed to "discover" all of their documentation to the court as Professor Richard Susskind claimed under oath that he did a 40 man hour investigation. They did so because they only wanted to proceed from the point of transfer. Metalipsis is the reversal of cause and effect, ie effect and cause. So rather than commence proceedings from where Ms James left the memo in the confidential directory, they sought to conceal these events including trying to sack me because Ms James has a loud voice which I am also supposed to have misrepresented - and never had this conversation to my knowledge as I was not concerned about her loud voice which incidentally she does have, but was concerned about her low skills base and cesspit of a private life. They commenced proceedings from the request to transfer using the fact that I had previously been given a warning under the disciplinary process, ie effect and the court was in concurrence with them despite my efforts to focus on causation. As a consequence of events it turned out that my witness (Michael Ford,barrister) knew their game plan and that contact had been made with the judge prior to my hearing date according to Respondent's Counsel (Bruce Carr). There is therefore a serious act(s) of conspiracy which lead to a perversion of the course of justice by Professor Richard Susskind. Everything became certain at the Court of Appeal when the judgment failed to disclose cited case law on the ultra vires doctrine - which means outwith the scope of. ie, the Judge was doing misconduct in public office. They were trying to say that they had the right to do a management decision and to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of my bilaterally agreed contract. Whereas, the reality was that as my contract was a private contract in law, the ultra vires doctrine did not apply and they could not imply terms and conditions into my contract as they saw fit. Professor Richard Susskind was out of order, malicious and evil in sacking me as well as not sacking Cathy James and others, such as her bosses Siobhan Cross and Anne Molyneux albeit it would have been difficult to sack Ann as she was an equity partner. However, the Partnership Act should have meant something occurred to Ann Molyneux as all partners were JOINTLY liable under English law - and maybe a reason why law firms now operate as LLP (limited liability partnerships).
My first improvement therefore would be to have a new employment law and to train all judges to spot "Metalipsis" and to focus on causation. There is a saying as an "equitable doctrine" - the earliest in time prevails. In this case causation should have been the point at which Ms James was incompetent, not the point at my refusal to transfer, ie the "effect" of the outcome of the disciplinary hearings led to my "causing" my refusal to transfer to the float team, albeit I did not refuse to transfer at all. That was reasonable, reasonable, reasonable as I was legally able to refuse to transfer at all according to my contract because at the time of transfer (a) I had been suspended and the disciplinary clause was in operation, not the job description or variable clause; (b) I was a permanent secretary not a float secretary by bilateral consent and there was permanent positions available but Professor Richard Susskind would not proffer any to me. Once the warning had been given (and you now know this warning should never have been given as it was impossible for me to breach confidentiality as no confidentiality existed as Ms James left the memo in the public network directory) and, even although I have no knowledge of the alleged conversation other than that Catherine Johnson had a similar conversation with me at her instance that I admit to - I had no choice but to accept the warning under disciplinary rules. Under the disciplinary rules you could be found innocent, be given a warning or sacked - there was no other disciplinary rule to also transfer. I told Professor Richard Susskind that the warning was unsound, yet he still sacked me, because that was his intention all along. Transfer and sack.
My second improvement to law would be to bring into employment law an extension of the rule on defamation - a tort law. Tort means wrong or wrongful. This is because, having been sacked I found that I could not get another permanent job without some difficulty and the legal profession is dominated by Agencies who would look for "temp" work for me, but refused to put me forward for permanent positions - and this situation still exists some 20 years later. (I may have been blackballed by the legal profession). Also when I did secure a permanent position I dropped from a top 25 London law firm to a bottom tier law firm albeit my pay actually went up a little.
I got work in a small law firm and my boss and two others were head hunted to S J Berwin. In reality, what was headhunted was the project I was working on a £200 million misrepresentation action in the Official Referees court using document image processing technology between a Plaintiff, two Defendants and 7 third parties, our acting for the 6th & 7th third party. A really big case for a very small law firm to handle. So with a reputation of having worked at Masons I must have been seen as pretty darn good concerning my qualifications and abilities. So I was headhunted too with the project to S J Berwin & Co - a top 25 London law firm within the space of two months. Back at the level I should have been working at but no longer a secretary, now a fee earner paralegal. All went well concerning my performance on the project which suddenly settled at 6 months. I was then asked to take on administration tasks in the department and I facilitated my bosses move to the PFI Department as it was clear we were without client work and was on the coat-tails of others. My situation worsened as did the stress I was under through lack of work and my mental health deteriorated. I eventually got seconded onto a £24 billion global merger and further seconded to client which work lasted a year and I performed well. The situation in my department had not improved by my return and upon my return my situation deteriorated further until a memo came round saying my boss Julian Critchlow was a "leading individual" and "thorough". I snapped, firing off a memo to marketing saying the information was fabricated and false, that he was in fact shit, he did not bring client work or clients to the firm and that there were contractual issues outstanding between us, which had apparently not been rectified by whistleblowing my contract a few months earlier. I was sacked for using the word "shit" in an email, and they applied the rules retrospectively as my contract did not give them the ability to sack me for using an email to deliver the seriousness of my message. Perhaps I should have been polite and said my boss was a "failure", but that did not appear to me to be appropriate - the dictionary meaning of the word shit is "contemptible person" and "nonsense". Both applied and it is my human right to use a word in an Oxford English Dictionary, howsoever, hard it is for them to swallow. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I was being honest. Needless to say, my reference says I am honest with integrity! The firm did get rid of my boss (Julian Critchlow) shortly thereafter as well as getting rid of my other boss (Nicholas Carnell) as well as the senior departmental partner (Ian Insley) through time.
So I have been sacked twice: both occasions I have not been causation. The courts have not rectified the situation by providing justice. And I have therefore been defamed by dismissal twice. Because it is easier to sack me than face up to the nonsense occurring in management, ie mismanagement and detrimental man management practices, even neglect, I have a slur on my character and am judged by Agencies who predominate in the legal profession concerning jobs. I am actually a model employee and do well when being treated properly. But I have not been able to find paid work over the last 15 years, albeit I have done voluntary work for the last 9 years sometimes as much as 70 hour weeks and at a varied and seriously high level in society at times with more autonomy than I would have got had I remained a paralegal. I have neither progressed my career to lawyer, barrister or academic: all because Ms James was incompetent and has a loud voice and for using a word in the Oxford English Dictionary - you can perhaps see my point that I have been defamed by being sacked twice which has not been rectified by the courts via Justice and damages including the damage to my law degree as events impacted on my second year LLB exams and nearly finished me off in my fourth year as well: but against all the odds I did get my LLB degree.
Which brings me to my third area for improvement - "Corporate bullying". Like I have stated above, there has been mismanagement and detrimental man management practices on all three of my court actions albeit they relate to two dismissals. Both Anne Molyneux and Cathy James failed to comply with company policy but rather than focus on them they brought disciplinary hearings against myself and Catherine Johnson, three allegations each, mine for gross misconduct and Catherine's for minor misconduct. The outcome being I was asked to transfer to the float team and Catherine was sacked. Nothing whatsoever occurred to Cathy James who was deemed valuable by Professor Richard Susskind, yet she was causation. (The confidential memo was trying to promote a fee earner to associate at 4 1/2 years instead of the company policy of 5 years which Anne Molyneux should have been aware of. Needless to say, eventually the person did get so promoted: all a little trivial if you ask me). Further a computer related allegation was brought by Ann Molyneux and Siobhan Cross both of whom could barely turn on a computer. This may be being concealed because Masons is a computer and IT specialist law firm together with construction law. They were asking myself and Catherine to self-incriminate wherein fact we had done nothing wrong other than to notice that the amount of work done in a "folder" tallies up at the bottom of the page when covered by the mouse. We were thereby able to show who was doing the majority of the work in the department over a period of time and it was not Cathy James. Whilst I did know how to do this, I did not do it. Catherine Johnson was measuring megabytes. There were no guidelines to say we could not do this and there was a work imbalance in the department, especially concerning Catherine's workload and she had merely sought to gather evidence of measured megabytes to show the work imbalance in the department to do something about her situation : which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances as I had brought a complaint of bullying by her boss the year previous and it had been mishandled by Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, but won on appeal on a procedural error - which may be why there was a vendetta against me. Nothing was found against Catherine Johnson but she was still sacked presumably because she did not have 2 years employment history. I would like to see a new law against corporate bullying, where the firm gangs up on you concerning the disciplinary proceedings and knowingly bring proceedings when others are cause and not subject to proceedings; distance themselves from causation by transferring and sacking and thereby enabling METALIPSIS the reversal of cause and effect and further engage in corruption in a court case by perverting the course of justice or engage in deceit and delaying tactics - it took 10 years to get my third litigation to the point of mediation and subsequently into court.
On the issue of mediation: according to the Woolf Reforms we are all supposed to engage in mediation as early in the case as possible. At ten years, respondents in conspiracy with the judge deliberately extended the case beyond a point of reasonableness. Further, in engaging in mediation I am gagged from disclosing what was discussed in the mediation other than that a settlement was proferred - some 10% of the actual and potential damages sought. Further they did not engage in discussing the nitty gritty of the case but focussed on a schedule of losses which we discussed for four hours presumably because they did not want to give away their game plan, had they had one at all. Mediation is therefore, in my opinion - a complete con and a waste of money - albeit had I known that I would lose the case, some money would have been better than nothing - but I chose inequality rather than being unequal on appeal as the judge refused to deal with the Masons corruption and therefore may also have been biased concerning the S J Berwin case as bizarrely he found no sex discrimination yet it is obvious in evidence!
Therefore my fourth issues are to revoke the Woolf Reforms. Judges, barristers and lawyers should be about "applying the rule of law" not "compromising" it. So get ride of mediation/ADR/IDS whatever it is called in whichever format in the judiciary and legal profession: ITS A CON. That would save spending, in my case, an unnecessary £1000 as my half share of the expense. I would also get rid of "skeleton arguments" as that is how the judge's were able to abuse me in court. I would also get rid of preliminary hearings and application hearings as that is how the Woolf Reforms SAY they are giving a person access to justice but the REALITY is that you get a 1/2 hour hearing, if that, to put your case on appeal, which actually REMOVES the case from the direct path of justice, ie what you really want is the APPEAL, not a preliminary hearing or application hearing with no right to appeal from then on, ie ACCESS FROM JUSTICE. Further the Woolf Reforms said you had Access to Justice, but I experienced blocking case law Lane v Esdaile at the House of Lords level with the judges refusing to hear my Petition even although the Bishops said Prayers twice. I was also blocked by case law Martin v Glinware Distribution [1983] at the Court of Appeal concerning an article 177 preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice, which is at the discretion of the judges in the Court of Appeal but automatic in the House of Lords had my appeal been allowed. [My article 177 preliminary reference was to ensure that when cited case law is cited to a court that it is located in the judgment and if not it is a perversion of the course of justice - by a Judge and criminal offence (this was put to the judge on my third litigation and he point blank refused to deal with it, asking me not to mention it again or the threat was my third litigation would go wrong AND IT DID]. So, remove ADR/IDS/Mediation from the Judiciary and any other public body as it does the "opposite" as it can never be a public body concept as by its very nature and essence it is a private concept - so stop trying to privatise public bodies. Removal from the legal profession should establish law as a PROFESSION again as law is meant to be applied by lawyers and barristers, not not applied by compromise of the application of the rule of law.
And this fifth idea is a bit radical: I did not go the distance on my three cases to the European Court of Human Rights because at 10 years for two of the cases another four years or more did not seem appropriate to do - if the Woolf reforms of ex parte preliminary hearings and especially application hearings could be removed, I would suggest that they are replaced with a European court of Appeal headed up with European judges with British judges also on the European circuit in every member state. That is to say, that in my view it should be very very rare that a case is appealed, because judges should be able to get the law right first time round. Therefore to appeal a case should mean that rather than going to the European Court of Justice as the final round of appeal jurisdiction, the European Court of Justice should be the second or third tier of the appeals process hosted by the national court structure or tribunal structure. The emphasis would then be on getting the case right - independence of the judiciary (still qualified to inadvertent art 6 civil and perversion of the course of justice/misconduct in public office criminal if a judge deliberately abuses human rights). There then could be an appeal from the European level to the Supreme Court as the last court in the system.
My sixth idea for change is to make a difference between the types of cases that come before the courts and how they are processed. That is to say is the case merely seeking to REITERATE what the law IS or is the case seeking to CHALLENGE what the law is or is not to what the law OUGHT to be. Where the case is merely seeking to reiterate the law, this perhaps could be done via the greater use of Clerks or Paralegals, Pupilage like for instance how insurance claims are settled, perhaps overseen by solicitors, barristers or judges. This would free up judges to deal only with cases that CHALLENGE the rule of law which universally has the benefit of shaping society. Both styles of cases would signal the need for legislation and to progress society. If too many cases were coming forward seeking to reiterate what the law is, this would perhaps signal the need for greater promotion of that particular rule of law in society. Whereas a challenge would always signal a need to progress law in a given direction.
I am a great believer in Feedback forms over complaints. Every case before the court should be contacted a month after the case has finished at a given level to ask how the processing judge and the substantive trial judge - in your opinion - performed on your case. This is likely to assist greatly the need to train judges and may also have the benefit of capturing masonic activity within the judiciary and circumventing it.
So there you have it - seven issues to discuss concerning my experiences in the Industrial Tribunal and Royal Courts of Justice.
1. Metalipsis - reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause concerning causation
2. Defamation - sacking someone in full knowledge they are not cause and are innocent thereby impacting on their career
3. Corporate Bullying - mismanagement and detrimental man management practices
4. Woolf Reforms - mediation; skeleton arguments; preliminary and application hearings on appeal so as to remove the case from access TO justice; and blocking case law concerning article 177 preliminary hearings (now article 234 hearings) and at House of Lords stage (presumably now Supreme Court). So remove mediation from all public bodies and also the legal profession.
5. European Court of Human Rights intervenes in a case early in the process (1st or 2nd tier appeal) and staffed by European judges hosted by the national court structure with possibly of a right of appeal to a Supreme National Court (to satisfy Theresa May!!!).
6. Make a difference in the type of cases is it a REITERATION or a CHALLENGE
7. Feedback forms for the judiciary.
Maybe then someone stands a chance of actually getting Justice - in 20 years of trying! without resorting to street justice to attain it. I still wait in hope that the Police will investigate, arrest and prosecute Professor Richard Susskind and others for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office, but then the issues are masonic and I have 5 boxes or 15 lever arch files placed in chronologically order by Respondent's solicitors in my box cupboard - rather a lot of paperwork to show three miscarriages of justice and not an ounce of nouse between the judges to the cases. (To date the police have treated me very badly, yet they claim to read my blog. Perhaps now they can politely and with respect ask nicely for the boxes to get an investigation under way). No wonder the English and Scottish Human Rights Commission do not want to see the content of the boxes - they might get a fright.
The objective of a court system should be JUSTICE, not the nonsense that currently goes on and the sooner you get there the better - ten years for a litigation is nonsense. The English legal system is not fit for purpose and I refuse to use it on appeal choosing and experiencing inequality rather than being unequal in society.
The first case against Masons was about "METALIPSIS" - the reversal of cause and effect. What the judge and Respondents refused to do on the case was focus on "causation" - Ms Cathy James leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory. I was given a warning because I may have (albeit I do not know that I have) had a conversation with Ann Glazebrook - they allege it but they have not proved it took place. The warning was for breach of confidentiality something I could never have done because Ms James breached confidentiality in the first instance. So I should never have been given a warning. Ms James should have been sacked. That would have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately, Masons having chosen the wrong path out of the problem, then asked me to transfer to the float team. Because I had changed my contract from float team to permanent secretary I refused, not least because I would have been bullied in that position and was actually bullied on return to work, it would also have been a demotion or punishment. However, I proferred a compromise that I would transfer to a permanent position, ie that I would transfer. Professor Richard Susskind claiming to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable - at least he believes it - sacked me for refusing to obey an order of the company. He claimed he was making a "management decision", but unfortunately, the decision was "unlawful under contract" as no right to transfer existed on a legal interpretation of events. To say the least it is not reasonable to be sacked for your colleague's wrongdoing and incompetence. I was completely innocent of events.
So you would expect a court action to find in my favour. Not so, respondents had failed to "discover" all of their documentation to the court as Professor Richard Susskind claimed under oath that he did a 40 man hour investigation. They did so because they only wanted to proceed from the point of transfer. Metalipsis is the reversal of cause and effect, ie effect and cause. So rather than commence proceedings from where Ms James left the memo in the confidential directory, they sought to conceal these events including trying to sack me because Ms James has a loud voice which I am also supposed to have misrepresented - and never had this conversation to my knowledge as I was not concerned about her loud voice which incidentally she does have, but was concerned about her low skills base and cesspit of a private life. They commenced proceedings from the request to transfer using the fact that I had previously been given a warning under the disciplinary process, ie effect and the court was in concurrence with them despite my efforts to focus on causation. As a consequence of events it turned out that my witness (Michael Ford,barrister) knew their game plan and that contact had been made with the judge prior to my hearing date according to Respondent's Counsel (Bruce Carr). There is therefore a serious act(s) of conspiracy which lead to a perversion of the course of justice by Professor Richard Susskind. Everything became certain at the Court of Appeal when the judgment failed to disclose cited case law on the ultra vires doctrine - which means outwith the scope of. ie, the Judge was doing misconduct in public office. They were trying to say that they had the right to do a management decision and to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of my bilaterally agreed contract. Whereas, the reality was that as my contract was a private contract in law, the ultra vires doctrine did not apply and they could not imply terms and conditions into my contract as they saw fit. Professor Richard Susskind was out of order, malicious and evil in sacking me as well as not sacking Cathy James and others, such as her bosses Siobhan Cross and Anne Molyneux albeit it would have been difficult to sack Ann as she was an equity partner. However, the Partnership Act should have meant something occurred to Ann Molyneux as all partners were JOINTLY liable under English law - and maybe a reason why law firms now operate as LLP (limited liability partnerships).
My first improvement therefore would be to have a new employment law and to train all judges to spot "Metalipsis" and to focus on causation. There is a saying as an "equitable doctrine" - the earliest in time prevails. In this case causation should have been the point at which Ms James was incompetent, not the point at my refusal to transfer, ie the "effect" of the outcome of the disciplinary hearings led to my "causing" my refusal to transfer to the float team, albeit I did not refuse to transfer at all. That was reasonable, reasonable, reasonable as I was legally able to refuse to transfer at all according to my contract because at the time of transfer (a) I had been suspended and the disciplinary clause was in operation, not the job description or variable clause; (b) I was a permanent secretary not a float secretary by bilateral consent and there was permanent positions available but Professor Richard Susskind would not proffer any to me. Once the warning had been given (and you now know this warning should never have been given as it was impossible for me to breach confidentiality as no confidentiality existed as Ms James left the memo in the public network directory) and, even although I have no knowledge of the alleged conversation other than that Catherine Johnson had a similar conversation with me at her instance that I admit to - I had no choice but to accept the warning under disciplinary rules. Under the disciplinary rules you could be found innocent, be given a warning or sacked - there was no other disciplinary rule to also transfer. I told Professor Richard Susskind that the warning was unsound, yet he still sacked me, because that was his intention all along. Transfer and sack.
My second improvement to law would be to bring into employment law an extension of the rule on defamation - a tort law. Tort means wrong or wrongful. This is because, having been sacked I found that I could not get another permanent job without some difficulty and the legal profession is dominated by Agencies who would look for "temp" work for me, but refused to put me forward for permanent positions - and this situation still exists some 20 years later. (I may have been blackballed by the legal profession). Also when I did secure a permanent position I dropped from a top 25 London law firm to a bottom tier law firm albeit my pay actually went up a little.
I got work in a small law firm and my boss and two others were head hunted to S J Berwin. In reality, what was headhunted was the project I was working on a £200 million misrepresentation action in the Official Referees court using document image processing technology between a Plaintiff, two Defendants and 7 third parties, our acting for the 6th & 7th third party. A really big case for a very small law firm to handle. So with a reputation of having worked at Masons I must have been seen as pretty darn good concerning my qualifications and abilities. So I was headhunted too with the project to S J Berwin & Co - a top 25 London law firm within the space of two months. Back at the level I should have been working at but no longer a secretary, now a fee earner paralegal. All went well concerning my performance on the project which suddenly settled at 6 months. I was then asked to take on administration tasks in the department and I facilitated my bosses move to the PFI Department as it was clear we were without client work and was on the coat-tails of others. My situation worsened as did the stress I was under through lack of work and my mental health deteriorated. I eventually got seconded onto a £24 billion global merger and further seconded to client which work lasted a year and I performed well. The situation in my department had not improved by my return and upon my return my situation deteriorated further until a memo came round saying my boss Julian Critchlow was a "leading individual" and "thorough". I snapped, firing off a memo to marketing saying the information was fabricated and false, that he was in fact shit, he did not bring client work or clients to the firm and that there were contractual issues outstanding between us, which had apparently not been rectified by whistleblowing my contract a few months earlier. I was sacked for using the word "shit" in an email, and they applied the rules retrospectively as my contract did not give them the ability to sack me for using an email to deliver the seriousness of my message. Perhaps I should have been polite and said my boss was a "failure", but that did not appear to me to be appropriate - the dictionary meaning of the word shit is "contemptible person" and "nonsense". Both applied and it is my human right to use a word in an Oxford English Dictionary, howsoever, hard it is for them to swallow. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I was being honest. Needless to say, my reference says I am honest with integrity! The firm did get rid of my boss (Julian Critchlow) shortly thereafter as well as getting rid of my other boss (Nicholas Carnell) as well as the senior departmental partner (Ian Insley) through time.
So I have been sacked twice: both occasions I have not been causation. The courts have not rectified the situation by providing justice. And I have therefore been defamed by dismissal twice. Because it is easier to sack me than face up to the nonsense occurring in management, ie mismanagement and detrimental man management practices, even neglect, I have a slur on my character and am judged by Agencies who predominate in the legal profession concerning jobs. I am actually a model employee and do well when being treated properly. But I have not been able to find paid work over the last 15 years, albeit I have done voluntary work for the last 9 years sometimes as much as 70 hour weeks and at a varied and seriously high level in society at times with more autonomy than I would have got had I remained a paralegal. I have neither progressed my career to lawyer, barrister or academic: all because Ms James was incompetent and has a loud voice and for using a word in the Oxford English Dictionary - you can perhaps see my point that I have been defamed by being sacked twice which has not been rectified by the courts via Justice and damages including the damage to my law degree as events impacted on my second year LLB exams and nearly finished me off in my fourth year as well: but against all the odds I did get my LLB degree.
Which brings me to my third area for improvement - "Corporate bullying". Like I have stated above, there has been mismanagement and detrimental man management practices on all three of my court actions albeit they relate to two dismissals. Both Anne Molyneux and Cathy James failed to comply with company policy but rather than focus on them they brought disciplinary hearings against myself and Catherine Johnson, three allegations each, mine for gross misconduct and Catherine's for minor misconduct. The outcome being I was asked to transfer to the float team and Catherine was sacked. Nothing whatsoever occurred to Cathy James who was deemed valuable by Professor Richard Susskind, yet she was causation. (The confidential memo was trying to promote a fee earner to associate at 4 1/2 years instead of the company policy of 5 years which Anne Molyneux should have been aware of. Needless to say, eventually the person did get so promoted: all a little trivial if you ask me). Further a computer related allegation was brought by Ann Molyneux and Siobhan Cross both of whom could barely turn on a computer. This may be being concealed because Masons is a computer and IT specialist law firm together with construction law. They were asking myself and Catherine to self-incriminate wherein fact we had done nothing wrong other than to notice that the amount of work done in a "folder" tallies up at the bottom of the page when covered by the mouse. We were thereby able to show who was doing the majority of the work in the department over a period of time and it was not Cathy James. Whilst I did know how to do this, I did not do it. Catherine Johnson was measuring megabytes. There were no guidelines to say we could not do this and there was a work imbalance in the department, especially concerning Catherine's workload and she had merely sought to gather evidence of measured megabytes to show the work imbalance in the department to do something about her situation : which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances as I had brought a complaint of bullying by her boss the year previous and it had been mishandled by Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, but won on appeal on a procedural error - which may be why there was a vendetta against me. Nothing was found against Catherine Johnson but she was still sacked presumably because she did not have 2 years employment history. I would like to see a new law against corporate bullying, where the firm gangs up on you concerning the disciplinary proceedings and knowingly bring proceedings when others are cause and not subject to proceedings; distance themselves from causation by transferring and sacking and thereby enabling METALIPSIS the reversal of cause and effect and further engage in corruption in a court case by perverting the course of justice or engage in deceit and delaying tactics - it took 10 years to get my third litigation to the point of mediation and subsequently into court.
On the issue of mediation: according to the Woolf Reforms we are all supposed to engage in mediation as early in the case as possible. At ten years, respondents in conspiracy with the judge deliberately extended the case beyond a point of reasonableness. Further, in engaging in mediation I am gagged from disclosing what was discussed in the mediation other than that a settlement was proferred - some 10% of the actual and potential damages sought. Further they did not engage in discussing the nitty gritty of the case but focussed on a schedule of losses which we discussed for four hours presumably because they did not want to give away their game plan, had they had one at all. Mediation is therefore, in my opinion - a complete con and a waste of money - albeit had I known that I would lose the case, some money would have been better than nothing - but I chose inequality rather than being unequal on appeal as the judge refused to deal with the Masons corruption and therefore may also have been biased concerning the S J Berwin case as bizarrely he found no sex discrimination yet it is obvious in evidence!
Therefore my fourth issues are to revoke the Woolf Reforms. Judges, barristers and lawyers should be about "applying the rule of law" not "compromising" it. So get ride of mediation/ADR/IDS whatever it is called in whichever format in the judiciary and legal profession: ITS A CON. That would save spending, in my case, an unnecessary £1000 as my half share of the expense. I would also get rid of "skeleton arguments" as that is how the judge's were able to abuse me in court. I would also get rid of preliminary hearings and application hearings as that is how the Woolf Reforms SAY they are giving a person access to justice but the REALITY is that you get a 1/2 hour hearing, if that, to put your case on appeal, which actually REMOVES the case from the direct path of justice, ie what you really want is the APPEAL, not a preliminary hearing or application hearing with no right to appeal from then on, ie ACCESS FROM JUSTICE. Further the Woolf Reforms said you had Access to Justice, but I experienced blocking case law Lane v Esdaile at the House of Lords level with the judges refusing to hear my Petition even although the Bishops said Prayers twice. I was also blocked by case law Martin v Glinware Distribution [1983] at the Court of Appeal concerning an article 177 preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice, which is at the discretion of the judges in the Court of Appeal but automatic in the House of Lords had my appeal been allowed. [My article 177 preliminary reference was to ensure that when cited case law is cited to a court that it is located in the judgment and if not it is a perversion of the course of justice - by a Judge and criminal offence (this was put to the judge on my third litigation and he point blank refused to deal with it, asking me not to mention it again or the threat was my third litigation would go wrong AND IT DID]. So, remove ADR/IDS/Mediation from the Judiciary and any other public body as it does the "opposite" as it can never be a public body concept as by its very nature and essence it is a private concept - so stop trying to privatise public bodies. Removal from the legal profession should establish law as a PROFESSION again as law is meant to be applied by lawyers and barristers, not not applied by compromise of the application of the rule of law.
And this fifth idea is a bit radical: I did not go the distance on my three cases to the European Court of Human Rights because at 10 years for two of the cases another four years or more did not seem appropriate to do - if the Woolf reforms of ex parte preliminary hearings and especially application hearings could be removed, I would suggest that they are replaced with a European court of Appeal headed up with European judges with British judges also on the European circuit in every member state. That is to say, that in my view it should be very very rare that a case is appealed, because judges should be able to get the law right first time round. Therefore to appeal a case should mean that rather than going to the European Court of Justice as the final round of appeal jurisdiction, the European Court of Justice should be the second or third tier of the appeals process hosted by the national court structure or tribunal structure. The emphasis would then be on getting the case right - independence of the judiciary (still qualified to inadvertent art 6 civil and perversion of the course of justice/misconduct in public office criminal if a judge deliberately abuses human rights). There then could be an appeal from the European level to the Supreme Court as the last court in the system.
My sixth idea for change is to make a difference between the types of cases that come before the courts and how they are processed. That is to say is the case merely seeking to REITERATE what the law IS or is the case seeking to CHALLENGE what the law is or is not to what the law OUGHT to be. Where the case is merely seeking to reiterate the law, this perhaps could be done via the greater use of Clerks or Paralegals, Pupilage like for instance how insurance claims are settled, perhaps overseen by solicitors, barristers or judges. This would free up judges to deal only with cases that CHALLENGE the rule of law which universally has the benefit of shaping society. Both styles of cases would signal the need for legislation and to progress society. If too many cases were coming forward seeking to reiterate what the law is, this would perhaps signal the need for greater promotion of that particular rule of law in society. Whereas a challenge would always signal a need to progress law in a given direction.
I am a great believer in Feedback forms over complaints. Every case before the court should be contacted a month after the case has finished at a given level to ask how the processing judge and the substantive trial judge - in your opinion - performed on your case. This is likely to assist greatly the need to train judges and may also have the benefit of capturing masonic activity within the judiciary and circumventing it.
So there you have it - seven issues to discuss concerning my experiences in the Industrial Tribunal and Royal Courts of Justice.
1. Metalipsis - reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause concerning causation
2. Defamation - sacking someone in full knowledge they are not cause and are innocent thereby impacting on their career
3. Corporate Bullying - mismanagement and detrimental man management practices
4. Woolf Reforms - mediation; skeleton arguments; preliminary and application hearings on appeal so as to remove the case from access TO justice; and blocking case law concerning article 177 preliminary hearings (now article 234 hearings) and at House of Lords stage (presumably now Supreme Court). So remove mediation from all public bodies and also the legal profession.
5. European Court of Human Rights intervenes in a case early in the process (1st or 2nd tier appeal) and staffed by European judges hosted by the national court structure with possibly of a right of appeal to a Supreme National Court (to satisfy Theresa May!!!).
6. Make a difference in the type of cases is it a REITERATION or a CHALLENGE
7. Feedback forms for the judiciary.
Maybe then someone stands a chance of actually getting Justice - in 20 years of trying! without resorting to street justice to attain it. I still wait in hope that the Police will investigate, arrest and prosecute Professor Richard Susskind and others for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office, but then the issues are masonic and I have 5 boxes or 15 lever arch files placed in chronologically order by Respondent's solicitors in my box cupboard - rather a lot of paperwork to show three miscarriages of justice and not an ounce of nouse between the judges to the cases. (To date the police have treated me very badly, yet they claim to read my blog. Perhaps now they can politely and with respect ask nicely for the boxes to get an investigation under way). No wonder the English and Scottish Human Rights Commission do not want to see the content of the boxes - they might get a fright.
The objective of a court system should be JUSTICE, not the nonsense that currently goes on and the sooner you get there the better - ten years for a litigation is nonsense. The English legal system is not fit for purpose and I refuse to use it on appeal choosing and experiencing inequality rather than being unequal in society.
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:47 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home