Organised Crime and Corruption - some documents you may like to read
I have been putting some documents out recently relating to my three court cases which have been subjected to organised crime and corruption. Some of them may or may not have loaded properly on Facebook - but there is currently a need to do freedom of expression and level the playing field. So here goes:
Instructions to Counsel Mr Michael Ford of Doughty Street Chambers (Click here)
Molyneux/Cross, Masons - Disciplinary Hearing 1995 with Michael Ford, Barrister of Doughty Street Chambers in attendance (Click here)
Letter by Louise Christian of Christian Fisher & Co who represented myself and Catherine Johnson and instructed Counsel, Michael Ford. Louise correctly identified a management problem within Masons and told them so thereby establishing KNOWLEDGE(Click here)
Letter by John McDade, my brother who is an Management Accountant by profession notifying mismanagement(Click here)
Professor Richard Susskind OBE, Masons, transcript of Disciplinary Hearing (Click here)
I also sued S J Berwin & Co as there was serious mismanagement issues concerning my bosses Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell and head of department Ian Insley. There was a serious workload issue and the performance figures show this as certain. The lawyers for S J Berwin & Co were Susan Kelly and Marie Van Der Zyl of Kingsford Stacey & Co, subsequently Alison Parker of Davenport Lyons and they utilised Tim Pullen of Godolphin Chambers who failed to represent that he was also with Doughty Street Chambers. There was a lot of legal nonsense and strategy on the case which failed to be processed as Contempt of Court before Judge Charles Ryan who took 9 months to process his reserved decision and found against me. The case was a sex discrimination case and Respondents' solicitors strategy was to refuse to accept that Elie Zekaria, a fee earner paralegal was the male comparator. Bizarrely nothing other than the performance figures were supplied by Respondents' solicitors to the case which was one sided - I provided substantive evidence of mismanagement and omission of human resources to act. However, keep your own counsel on this one - but its obvious! Solomon Wifa was an agency worker and was therefore not identified as the male comparator. I was a fee earner paralegal and my charge out rate was £120 per hour and my fee earner code was 438.
Bundle of Performance figures released by S J Berwin & Co which establish that there was sex discrimination and a workload problem in the department concerning me and that less favourable treatment was as a consequence of activities by management which was mismanagement and detrimental man management practices (Click here)
I subsequently sued for a third time via the Royal Courts of Justice and the pleading and evidence bundles (all 15 lever arch files sorted by Counsel William Van Dyke of Crown Office Chambers and respondents' solicitors Paula Jefferson of DLA Beachcrofts LLP) established organised crime and corruption with intelligence issues linked to the Woolf Reforms, S J Berwin & Co and Masons and Birbeck College, University College London in them. Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with any issues of organised crime and corruption linked to anything provided by Respondents' solicitors or myself (in my 1 lever arch bundle of pleadings). Bizarrely, a few weeks earlier - at 10 years too late, I entered into a mediation via the Woolf Reforms - I was offered 10% of my forensically assessed damages of which I would have had to pay back some benefits receipt to DWP. I did not accept the offer and the mediation failed. However, the reason why it is bizarre - if Insurers can find 10% of assessed damages, then surely the Judge should have found something as well. Unfortunately not: no breach of contract, no professional negligence, no sex discrimination and no personal injury (in that regard I had the riveting words "a sign of neglect is a button missing by a General Consultant supported by Respondent's Consultant who is a Professor of Psychiatry!). It is only Consultant Psychiatrists who are representing that I have a mental health disability, which has the appearance of being socially engineered and asset stripped on the issue of care and treatment: so I was not surprised at Sir Robert Owen QC's finding on personal injury and disregard for my and respondents expert reports in that regard, just how he reasoned how he got there may be an issue. See sex discrimination and Professor Richard Susskind OBE's and Molyneux/Cross transcripts etc above. Sir Robert Owen QC did actually affirm he read most of the papers, which was the first question put to him by me. William Van Dyke, Respondents' Counsel did try to deal with the issue of organised crime and corruption, but Sir Robert Owen QC was having none of it - so under cross-examination on oath I represented the issue as "In a Ravens Nest you should find a Raven - Gaelic Proverb - in a judgment you should find a rule of law". The threat was that if I insisted on dealing with the Masons corruption, the case would go against me - it did anyway and there is perceived to be behind the scenes activity. Here are the intelligence issues: David Shapiro is an American lawyer of some standing in America. He is over in the UK involved in the Woolf Reforms which appear to be processing his version of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - its cheaper and quicker than litigation. ADR is actually a Japanese concept which is used culturally "to save loss of face". I attended an inhouse Seminar at S J Berwin to which I was invited and the profile notes were handed to me, along with the information about my boss Julian Critchlow who favoured arbitration. There appears to have been a meeting of minds between them and I can confirm that S J Berwin Jewish lawyers were upset at the firm joining their equity department only with a German firm and that they subsequently boycotted the summer ball at the Kensington Roof Gardens. I did hear David Shapiro represent that he and five others brought this concept to America, he gave all names but I can only recall that he stated that "Irwin is dead". I represented my thoughts on the video of the seminar by asking why he was overhear undermining the rule of law in the UK and I can confirm he has read my dissertation via Birbeck College, University College London "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in Jurisprudence about the Woolf Reforms to which I did not agree. David Shapiro is represented in my dissertation along with others who I know and sent a note "you have the making of a true academic", which was pretty decent of him given I was arguing against his ideology. My boss Julian Critchlow disagreed with my dissertation, a colleague Khaled agreed with it and he is a double first from Harvard I am led to believe. I subsequently believe we have been "invaded" hence the letter to Tony Blair ex-PM with enclosures and he appears to have done nothing, and I am currently waiting for David Cameron to do something on three grounds. I have represented that the issue is the political offence of Treason R v Hennessy (1758) 1 Burr.
Dissertation in Jurisprudence - "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (1997) Birbeck College, University of London (Click here)
Intelligence issues concerning: David Shapiro / Julian Critchlow and my response to the inhouse Seminar given by David Shapiro at S J Berwin & Co - self-explanatory(Click here)
Tony Blair ex-PM letter 2000 (Click here)
Not sure who the good guys are or bad - not experiencing much goodness from those who should know better, so here is the evidence of corruption on the Masons case:
My barrister, Sean Brannigan (Click here) SB gave little to no advice for a fee, solicitor Rolf Stein of Pannones Pritchard Englefield (recommended by my witness Mr Michael Ford, Barrister of Doughty Street Chambers' Clerk. RS accepted the case move forward from Stratford in December to Ashford in July leaving 17 days to prepare an unprepared case to trial. RS then came off the record two days to trial and refused to instruct SB even with his fees paid up-to-date, SB's brief fee on client account in trust and a personal guarantee linked to a property transaction with Scottish solicitors to pay any refresher fee upon submission of an invoice which falls due to be paid 14 days after trial. Law Society found nothing wrong with RS's case preparation, nor did the Bar Council find anything wrong with SB's conduct.
My barrister and employment lecturer, Michael Ford of Doughty Street Chambers represented myself and a Miss Catherine Johnson in our respective disciplinary hearings at Masons which were effectively "Kangaroo Courts". (Click here) MF was required as a witness in the Employment Tribunal snd an aide memoire was provided to him to prepare a witness statement, which he failed to prepare. On the Friday before trial a telephone conversation occurred between us (a) Respondents go first; (b) the case is to be prepared from the point of transfer; and (c) hadn't prepared his witness statement via the aide memoire. I thought he was giving me advice, however, he was actually affirming that he had knowledge the case was being corrupted by Respondents Counsel. On the first day of trial, Judge Mr De Saxe duly overruled 9 pages of 11 pages of pleading, and Respondents' Counsel Bruce Carr had prepared his case from the point of transfer. My case as Plaintiff was prepared from the point of causation, Miss Cathy James leaving a confidential memo in the public network directories because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - contrariwise I did have confidential directories and Cathy and myself were both in the same training scheme when we were both told to arrange them. Further her bosses Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross were not complying with company policy either and AM tried to secure "associateship" for Julia Elson at 4 1/2 years instead of company policy 5 years. Julia was turned down. Moreover AM and SC brought computer related allegations against me which were false. Masons is a construction and computer specialist law firm but these two individuals had effectively ornaments as PCs on there desk and could barely use them, let alone understand computer technology even when they had access to specialists within the firm. All of this material was being "concealed" by Bruce Carr and Professor Richard Susskind OBE - hence the need for corruption. I don't think they instructed insurers and rather than settle the case, they engaged in organised crime and corruption. Bruce Carr actually mislead the judge as to the nature of my contract which Masons defined and refined. Professor Richard Susskind OBE in full knowledge of Cathy, Anne's and Siobhan's incompetence and lack of professionalism and ethics claimed to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable in sacking me because I refused to transfer to the float team, albeit I did meet him half way and proffer a compromise - I would transfer to a full-time permanent position, and they were available, but not to the float team. He should have sacked Cathy and referred AM and SC to the Law Society for retraining and supervision or removal of their practising certificates concerning false accusation, bringing the legal profession into disrepute, engaging in concealment and organised crime and corruption by misleading a judge - hence the need to overrule 9 pages of pleading, and protect the Equity in the Partnership, which I now want due to organised crime and corruption which they knowingly engaged in to my detriment and is ongoing. AM is now a High Court Judge - how did she get through police vetting and Law Society vetting and who supported her application - there has to be a reason for "concealment" of evidence. Bruce Carr's bundle was 1 lever arch file, mine was 2 lever arch files and due to the Judge overriding 9 pages of pleading, my evidence was not necessary nor my witnesses. Michael Ford failed to turn up as a witness, I was not aware he was a hostile witness and he was necessary. As a consequence of MF not turning up - Bruce Carr informed that he knew my witnesses itinerary and that it was because he had been before Mr De Saxe two weeks previously. A light went on my witness was nobbled, hence the complaints to the Bar Council re all three barristers. Bruce Carr informs that there was an intermediary between him and MF, Mr Jeremy McMullen QC who declined to participate in a Bar Complaint process, nor Geoffrey Robertson QC which probably would have meant self-incrimination/delivering up evidence from MF. Not a happy state of affairs. Michael Ford was also perceived to be stalking and still is.
Bruce Carr Bar Complaint - see above. (Click here) All of the three complaints above have passed through a trial before Sir Robert Owen QC in the Royal Courts of Justice in February 2014. They are therefore public domain documents. Bizarrely RO claims to have read the papers but refused to deal with organised crime when presented to him and also found nothing on the case. A mediation a few weeks earlier by Respondents' solicitor Paula Jefferson of DLA Beachcrofts LLP offered 10% of assessed damages by a forensic accountant - there must therefore have been something to find in the case. Sir Robert Owen QC is bent - you have seen the performance figures above referred concerning sex discrimination.
This is an intelligence issue - it is my first essay at Birbeck College, University College London and was written for Dr Lindsay Farmer who taught Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993. (Click here) The essay is supposed to be about pretrial review, but I could not find any reference to it and mistakenly presumed that Alternative Dispute Resolution was pre-trial review. Dr Farmer graded the essay at 50%, albeit I am probably 100% accurate on the concept of ADR. He may have been surprised at the content, but wrote a page of notes as a consequence of my essay. Quelle Surprise for both of us! There is an intelligence issue - Lord Mackay of Clashfern attempted to bring ADR into the English & Welsh legal system, Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg actually brought it in via Lord Woolf of Barnes who was Lord Chief Justice (and Jewish). Both Lord Mackay and Lord Irvine did their degrees at Edinburgh University as did Dr Lindsay Farmer albeit LF is younger and therefore not in the same classes but may have been taught by the same lecturer. Where and how did the concept of ADR find its way to Lord Irvine and Lord Mackay and how did I pick up on it at Masons - via Stephen York and Mark Roe who I referenced in my dissertation above. Incidentally, Dr Farmer was the second marker of my dissertation unbeknown to me for several years after the fact and he gave me no advice. Reckon he was going Quelle Surprise though! I am aware that David Shapiro, referred to above is the source relative to the Woolf Reforms or at least one of them. Where did he get the information about ADR - his profile may identify a source, but at some material time he changes from a top litigator in America and becomes a Settlement Master along with 5 others he avers in an inhouse Seminar at S J Berwin & Co - see above. However, I did follow this concept via media and it appears that Bill Clinton, ex President of America brought this concept to Jordan where it went global. Bill Clinton may have met David Shapiro possibly via Watergate but I don't know this at all. He may have picked up on it via Oxford University and Tony Blair ex PM or Richard Susskind who was also at Oxford doing his Phd. Professor Richard Susskind OBE (is also Jewish - didn't know this until last month) and is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice who was Lord Woolf, possibly Lord Bingham too and others. My three cases against Masons and S J Berwin & Co have experienced organised crime and corruption - which has to have a reason. My research on the Woolf Reforms and case against Masons and S J Berwin have all been processed objectively and separately, but now that I know Susskind is Jewish I am unsure whether there has been a Jewish plot sourcing from America via Jews to undermine the rule of law in England & Wales, subsequently Scotland and Europe. I did take part in the Directive on Mediation via the Subsidiary Principle conducted by Arlene MacCarthy MEP for New Labour. There were 27 published responses: 1 from Texas; 25 from across Europe all appearing to sing from the same hymn sheet - the David Shapiro model/Woolf reforms and mine which was arguing for the status quo and is a competition model rather than a coercive regime model. Two responses were interviewed, they refused to interview me as a party arguing against the motion, and then interviewed 5 experts she deemed expert and who according to my research could never be so; thereby rubber stamping an already settled outcome which is based on a misrepresentation via the Woolf Reforms that you can actually get "Access to Justice" with ADR in the system - you can't ADR is access FROM Justice because the parties decide the outcome of the dispute not a Judge who provides Justice. It is actually access to compromise and your dispute is removed from the public domain, hidden from society via a compromise agreement which effectively gags you whilst potentially rewarding the parties for their breaches by creating a new contract. There is no safe or just outcome unless the parties choose to do 50:50. My situation referred above was proferred a 10:90 split and I said no thank you. On a further intelligence issue - David Shapiro's profile refers to a Nazi case called Rockwell. The Nazi's were allies of the Japanese - query is this how the concept of ADR got into the American system - very successful way to drop intelligence into America especially if Jewish people are involved in the case - liaise with DS direct to see if any truth in it, currently supposition and conjecture. At the same time, why Law Lords who were students at Edinburgh - Hess perhaps. Gordon Brown history student at Edinburgh too - again supposition and conjecture - but somehow, the English & Welsh legal system was "invaded" by a Japanese concept sourcing from Jewish people via America - and as a student at Birbeck College doing the theory on the Woolf Reforms, as a litigant in person in the courts doing the practical concerning the Woolf Reforms, and having written to Tony Blair ex-PM substantively with supporting evidence - I appear to be ignored, subjected to 20 years of organised crime and corruption on what are in reality simple cases of mismanagement and detrimental man management practices, stalked by academics, placed under surveillance which I am aware of, computer hacked, experiencing intellectual espionage or something like it and assaulted without any or minimal police intervention who also appear not to be able to process criminality or provide a crime record number. I also appear to be being socially engineered into mental health services when not mentally ill - a sign of neglect is a button missing apparently. I am also told I am deluded on two grounds which I clearly am not. I also appear unable to gain employment yet am highly skilled and intelligent and I am engineered and asset stripped on benefits - all because Cathy James is incompetent, has a loud voice - yes they did try to sack me because of it as gross misconduct and are concealing information concerning Siobhan Cross and Anne Molyneux - which must be for a reason. Further, all ancillary agencies to law failed including the Human Rights Commission, Equalities Commission, Law Society and Ombudsman and there appears to have been a news blackout concerning Jane Betts, my case handler relating to 28 complaints to the Law Society of which she processed 3 and found nothing. But she was being bullied by the Head of the Law Society, Kamlesh Bhal and her lawyer was Jill Andrews, a friend and colleague of Anne Molyneux, Masons. Is there anything to be concluded from this merry-go-round - I was eventually told that the files were flooded and given a £200 cheque because it had taken longer than 2 years to process 3 of the potential 28 complaints - no I did not come down with the last shower. The Ombudsman likewise found nothing either. Nor the IPCC concerning the Police Officer who opened a file at Southwark Police and failed to catch any criminals when the evidence was certain at the EAT stage by the failure to cite case precedent in the Judgment on appeal!!!!! You can only appeal on a POINT OF LAW, ie case precedent or statute
Quelle Surprise - I appear surrounded!
Notice the 5 case precedent at the EAT stage. Will provide a copy of the judgment later. (Click here)
This is the CPR Rule 1 (Click here)It has an objective - now check out the current CPR rules - you will not find Equality in them, impartiality refers to experts only, article 6 and fairness does not feature re HRA, and Justice is not substantive either. Proportionality is relative to costs, expediency may mean fast track/multi track and mediation/ADR is still in the rules - even when the game is up and folks have been rumbled in theory and practice and I cant see the issue relating to economy but that might be fees. The later 4 are the Woolf Reforms, the former were pre 1999 and the Access to Justice Act or thereabouts - but surely the parties and the judge if acting independently without fear or favour should be strapped into procedural rules that require equality, impartiality, fairness and justice as an objective to democracy. Currently we do not exist in a democracy because we are holed below the waterline on equality and justice - the ship is sinking due to compromise in the system which is not being uniformly applied aa a rule of law and our professionals are not engaged professionally or ethically or at all with the sole objective of the application of the rule of law - not its compromise which requires to be outlawed from all public domain institutions in the UK / Europe because ADR removes the dispute from the public domain by its very essence and nature - it is always private domain, creating a hidden society. Therefore, if you want safe and just society and democracy remove it by outlawing it as referred above. If you want unsafe and unjust society and not democracy but something else - ask Richard Susskind what is planned as his topic is law and philosophy whereas mine is Jurisprudence - the science and theory of human law - and he has a book End of lawyers or something like that, has a widget which appears to be a risk assessment policy without a rule of law in it and poorly drafted, yes I have seen it - he is advocating dispute avoidance - but disputes will always occur - so what is he upto intellectually - might not be of sound mind and if you really read his articles you might wonder what he is actually on about. He is however, engaged in organised crime and corruption by concealment - so maybe this is what he means by dispute avoidance - ask him.
Instructions to Counsel Mr Michael Ford of Doughty Street Chambers (Click here)
Molyneux/Cross, Masons - Disciplinary Hearing 1995 with Michael Ford, Barrister of Doughty Street Chambers in attendance (Click here)
Letter by Louise Christian of Christian Fisher & Co who represented myself and Catherine Johnson and instructed Counsel, Michael Ford. Louise correctly identified a management problem within Masons and told them so thereby establishing KNOWLEDGE(Click here)
Letter by John McDade, my brother who is an Management Accountant by profession notifying mismanagement(Click here)
Professor Richard Susskind OBE, Masons, transcript of Disciplinary Hearing (Click here)
I also sued S J Berwin & Co as there was serious mismanagement issues concerning my bosses Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell and head of department Ian Insley. There was a serious workload issue and the performance figures show this as certain. The lawyers for S J Berwin & Co were Susan Kelly and Marie Van Der Zyl of Kingsford Stacey & Co, subsequently Alison Parker of Davenport Lyons and they utilised Tim Pullen of Godolphin Chambers who failed to represent that he was also with Doughty Street Chambers. There was a lot of legal nonsense and strategy on the case which failed to be processed as Contempt of Court before Judge Charles Ryan who took 9 months to process his reserved decision and found against me. The case was a sex discrimination case and Respondents' solicitors strategy was to refuse to accept that Elie Zekaria, a fee earner paralegal was the male comparator. Bizarrely nothing other than the performance figures were supplied by Respondents' solicitors to the case which was one sided - I provided substantive evidence of mismanagement and omission of human resources to act. However, keep your own counsel on this one - but its obvious! Solomon Wifa was an agency worker and was therefore not identified as the male comparator. I was a fee earner paralegal and my charge out rate was £120 per hour and my fee earner code was 438.
Bundle of Performance figures released by S J Berwin & Co which establish that there was sex discrimination and a workload problem in the department concerning me and that less favourable treatment was as a consequence of activities by management which was mismanagement and detrimental man management practices (Click here)
I subsequently sued for a third time via the Royal Courts of Justice and the pleading and evidence bundles (all 15 lever arch files sorted by Counsel William Van Dyke of Crown Office Chambers and respondents' solicitors Paula Jefferson of DLA Beachcrofts LLP) established organised crime and corruption with intelligence issues linked to the Woolf Reforms, S J Berwin & Co and Masons and Birbeck College, University College London in them. Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with any issues of organised crime and corruption linked to anything provided by Respondents' solicitors or myself (in my 1 lever arch bundle of pleadings). Bizarrely, a few weeks earlier - at 10 years too late, I entered into a mediation via the Woolf Reforms - I was offered 10% of my forensically assessed damages of which I would have had to pay back some benefits receipt to DWP. I did not accept the offer and the mediation failed. However, the reason why it is bizarre - if Insurers can find 10% of assessed damages, then surely the Judge should have found something as well. Unfortunately not: no breach of contract, no professional negligence, no sex discrimination and no personal injury (in that regard I had the riveting words "a sign of neglect is a button missing by a General Consultant supported by Respondent's Consultant who is a Professor of Psychiatry!). It is only Consultant Psychiatrists who are representing that I have a mental health disability, which has the appearance of being socially engineered and asset stripped on the issue of care and treatment: so I was not surprised at Sir Robert Owen QC's finding on personal injury and disregard for my and respondents expert reports in that regard, just how he reasoned how he got there may be an issue. See sex discrimination and Professor Richard Susskind OBE's and Molyneux/Cross transcripts etc above. Sir Robert Owen QC did actually affirm he read most of the papers, which was the first question put to him by me. William Van Dyke, Respondents' Counsel did try to deal with the issue of organised crime and corruption, but Sir Robert Owen QC was having none of it - so under cross-examination on oath I represented the issue as "In a Ravens Nest you should find a Raven - Gaelic Proverb - in a judgment you should find a rule of law". The threat was that if I insisted on dealing with the Masons corruption, the case would go against me - it did anyway and there is perceived to be behind the scenes activity. Here are the intelligence issues: David Shapiro is an American lawyer of some standing in America. He is over in the UK involved in the Woolf Reforms which appear to be processing his version of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - its cheaper and quicker than litigation. ADR is actually a Japanese concept which is used culturally "to save loss of face". I attended an inhouse Seminar at S J Berwin to which I was invited and the profile notes were handed to me, along with the information about my boss Julian Critchlow who favoured arbitration. There appears to have been a meeting of minds between them and I can confirm that S J Berwin Jewish lawyers were upset at the firm joining their equity department only with a German firm and that they subsequently boycotted the summer ball at the Kensington Roof Gardens. I did hear David Shapiro represent that he and five others brought this concept to America, he gave all names but I can only recall that he stated that "Irwin is dead". I represented my thoughts on the video of the seminar by asking why he was overhear undermining the rule of law in the UK and I can confirm he has read my dissertation via Birbeck College, University College London "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in Jurisprudence about the Woolf Reforms to which I did not agree. David Shapiro is represented in my dissertation along with others who I know and sent a note "you have the making of a true academic", which was pretty decent of him given I was arguing against his ideology. My boss Julian Critchlow disagreed with my dissertation, a colleague Khaled agreed with it and he is a double first from Harvard I am led to believe. I subsequently believe we have been "invaded" hence the letter to Tony Blair ex-PM with enclosures and he appears to have done nothing, and I am currently waiting for David Cameron to do something on three grounds. I have represented that the issue is the political offence of Treason R v Hennessy (1758) 1 Burr.
Dissertation in Jurisprudence - "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (1997) Birbeck College, University of London (Click here)
Intelligence issues concerning: David Shapiro / Julian Critchlow and my response to the inhouse Seminar given by David Shapiro at S J Berwin & Co - self-explanatory(Click here)
Tony Blair ex-PM letter 2000 (Click here)
Not sure who the good guys are or bad - not experiencing much goodness from those who should know better, so here is the evidence of corruption on the Masons case:
My barrister, Sean Brannigan (Click here) SB gave little to no advice for a fee, solicitor Rolf Stein of Pannones Pritchard Englefield (recommended by my witness Mr Michael Ford, Barrister of Doughty Street Chambers' Clerk. RS accepted the case move forward from Stratford in December to Ashford in July leaving 17 days to prepare an unprepared case to trial. RS then came off the record two days to trial and refused to instruct SB even with his fees paid up-to-date, SB's brief fee on client account in trust and a personal guarantee linked to a property transaction with Scottish solicitors to pay any refresher fee upon submission of an invoice which falls due to be paid 14 days after trial. Law Society found nothing wrong with RS's case preparation, nor did the Bar Council find anything wrong with SB's conduct.
My barrister and employment lecturer, Michael Ford of Doughty Street Chambers represented myself and a Miss Catherine Johnson in our respective disciplinary hearings at Masons which were effectively "Kangaroo Courts". (Click here) MF was required as a witness in the Employment Tribunal snd an aide memoire was provided to him to prepare a witness statement, which he failed to prepare. On the Friday before trial a telephone conversation occurred between us (a) Respondents go first; (b) the case is to be prepared from the point of transfer; and (c) hadn't prepared his witness statement via the aide memoire. I thought he was giving me advice, however, he was actually affirming that he had knowledge the case was being corrupted by Respondents Counsel. On the first day of trial, Judge Mr De Saxe duly overruled 9 pages of 11 pages of pleading, and Respondents' Counsel Bruce Carr had prepared his case from the point of transfer. My case as Plaintiff was prepared from the point of causation, Miss Cathy James leaving a confidential memo in the public network directories because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - contrariwise I did have confidential directories and Cathy and myself were both in the same training scheme when we were both told to arrange them. Further her bosses Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross were not complying with company policy either and AM tried to secure "associateship" for Julia Elson at 4 1/2 years instead of company policy 5 years. Julia was turned down. Moreover AM and SC brought computer related allegations against me which were false. Masons is a construction and computer specialist law firm but these two individuals had effectively ornaments as PCs on there desk and could barely use them, let alone understand computer technology even when they had access to specialists within the firm. All of this material was being "concealed" by Bruce Carr and Professor Richard Susskind OBE - hence the need for corruption. I don't think they instructed insurers and rather than settle the case, they engaged in organised crime and corruption. Bruce Carr actually mislead the judge as to the nature of my contract which Masons defined and refined. Professor Richard Susskind OBE in full knowledge of Cathy, Anne's and Siobhan's incompetence and lack of professionalism and ethics claimed to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable in sacking me because I refused to transfer to the float team, albeit I did meet him half way and proffer a compromise - I would transfer to a full-time permanent position, and they were available, but not to the float team. He should have sacked Cathy and referred AM and SC to the Law Society for retraining and supervision or removal of their practising certificates concerning false accusation, bringing the legal profession into disrepute, engaging in concealment and organised crime and corruption by misleading a judge - hence the need to overrule 9 pages of pleading, and protect the Equity in the Partnership, which I now want due to organised crime and corruption which they knowingly engaged in to my detriment and is ongoing. AM is now a High Court Judge - how did she get through police vetting and Law Society vetting and who supported her application - there has to be a reason for "concealment" of evidence. Bruce Carr's bundle was 1 lever arch file, mine was 2 lever arch files and due to the Judge overriding 9 pages of pleading, my evidence was not necessary nor my witnesses. Michael Ford failed to turn up as a witness, I was not aware he was a hostile witness and he was necessary. As a consequence of MF not turning up - Bruce Carr informed that he knew my witnesses itinerary and that it was because he had been before Mr De Saxe two weeks previously. A light went on my witness was nobbled, hence the complaints to the Bar Council re all three barristers. Bruce Carr informs that there was an intermediary between him and MF, Mr Jeremy McMullen QC who declined to participate in a Bar Complaint process, nor Geoffrey Robertson QC which probably would have meant self-incrimination/delivering up evidence from MF. Not a happy state of affairs. Michael Ford was also perceived to be stalking and still is.
Bruce Carr Bar Complaint - see above. (Click here) All of the three complaints above have passed through a trial before Sir Robert Owen QC in the Royal Courts of Justice in February 2014. They are therefore public domain documents. Bizarrely RO claims to have read the papers but refused to deal with organised crime when presented to him and also found nothing on the case. A mediation a few weeks earlier by Respondents' solicitor Paula Jefferson of DLA Beachcrofts LLP offered 10% of assessed damages by a forensic accountant - there must therefore have been something to find in the case. Sir Robert Owen QC is bent - you have seen the performance figures above referred concerning sex discrimination.
This is an intelligence issue - it is my first essay at Birbeck College, University College London and was written for Dr Lindsay Farmer who taught Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993. (Click here) The essay is supposed to be about pretrial review, but I could not find any reference to it and mistakenly presumed that Alternative Dispute Resolution was pre-trial review. Dr Farmer graded the essay at 50%, albeit I am probably 100% accurate on the concept of ADR. He may have been surprised at the content, but wrote a page of notes as a consequence of my essay. Quelle Surprise for both of us! There is an intelligence issue - Lord Mackay of Clashfern attempted to bring ADR into the English & Welsh legal system, Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg actually brought it in via Lord Woolf of Barnes who was Lord Chief Justice (and Jewish). Both Lord Mackay and Lord Irvine did their degrees at Edinburgh University as did Dr Lindsay Farmer albeit LF is younger and therefore not in the same classes but may have been taught by the same lecturer. Where and how did the concept of ADR find its way to Lord Irvine and Lord Mackay and how did I pick up on it at Masons - via Stephen York and Mark Roe who I referenced in my dissertation above. Incidentally, Dr Farmer was the second marker of my dissertation unbeknown to me for several years after the fact and he gave me no advice. Reckon he was going Quelle Surprise though! I am aware that David Shapiro, referred to above is the source relative to the Woolf Reforms or at least one of them. Where did he get the information about ADR - his profile may identify a source, but at some material time he changes from a top litigator in America and becomes a Settlement Master along with 5 others he avers in an inhouse Seminar at S J Berwin & Co - see above. However, I did follow this concept via media and it appears that Bill Clinton, ex President of America brought this concept to Jordan where it went global. Bill Clinton may have met David Shapiro possibly via Watergate but I don't know this at all. He may have picked up on it via Oxford University and Tony Blair ex PM or Richard Susskind who was also at Oxford doing his Phd. Professor Richard Susskind OBE (is also Jewish - didn't know this until last month) and is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice who was Lord Woolf, possibly Lord Bingham too and others. My three cases against Masons and S J Berwin & Co have experienced organised crime and corruption - which has to have a reason. My research on the Woolf Reforms and case against Masons and S J Berwin have all been processed objectively and separately, but now that I know Susskind is Jewish I am unsure whether there has been a Jewish plot sourcing from America via Jews to undermine the rule of law in England & Wales, subsequently Scotland and Europe. I did take part in the Directive on Mediation via the Subsidiary Principle conducted by Arlene MacCarthy MEP for New Labour. There were 27 published responses: 1 from Texas; 25 from across Europe all appearing to sing from the same hymn sheet - the David Shapiro model/Woolf reforms and mine which was arguing for the status quo and is a competition model rather than a coercive regime model. Two responses were interviewed, they refused to interview me as a party arguing against the motion, and then interviewed 5 experts she deemed expert and who according to my research could never be so; thereby rubber stamping an already settled outcome which is based on a misrepresentation via the Woolf Reforms that you can actually get "Access to Justice" with ADR in the system - you can't ADR is access FROM Justice because the parties decide the outcome of the dispute not a Judge who provides Justice. It is actually access to compromise and your dispute is removed from the public domain, hidden from society via a compromise agreement which effectively gags you whilst potentially rewarding the parties for their breaches by creating a new contract. There is no safe or just outcome unless the parties choose to do 50:50. My situation referred above was proferred a 10:90 split and I said no thank you. On a further intelligence issue - David Shapiro's profile refers to a Nazi case called Rockwell. The Nazi's were allies of the Japanese - query is this how the concept of ADR got into the American system - very successful way to drop intelligence into America especially if Jewish people are involved in the case - liaise with DS direct to see if any truth in it, currently supposition and conjecture. At the same time, why Law Lords who were students at Edinburgh - Hess perhaps. Gordon Brown history student at Edinburgh too - again supposition and conjecture - but somehow, the English & Welsh legal system was "invaded" by a Japanese concept sourcing from Jewish people via America - and as a student at Birbeck College doing the theory on the Woolf Reforms, as a litigant in person in the courts doing the practical concerning the Woolf Reforms, and having written to Tony Blair ex-PM substantively with supporting evidence - I appear to be ignored, subjected to 20 years of organised crime and corruption on what are in reality simple cases of mismanagement and detrimental man management practices, stalked by academics, placed under surveillance which I am aware of, computer hacked, experiencing intellectual espionage or something like it and assaulted without any or minimal police intervention who also appear not to be able to process criminality or provide a crime record number. I also appear to be being socially engineered into mental health services when not mentally ill - a sign of neglect is a button missing apparently. I am also told I am deluded on two grounds which I clearly am not. I also appear unable to gain employment yet am highly skilled and intelligent and I am engineered and asset stripped on benefits - all because Cathy James is incompetent, has a loud voice - yes they did try to sack me because of it as gross misconduct and are concealing information concerning Siobhan Cross and Anne Molyneux - which must be for a reason. Further, all ancillary agencies to law failed including the Human Rights Commission, Equalities Commission, Law Society and Ombudsman and there appears to have been a news blackout concerning Jane Betts, my case handler relating to 28 complaints to the Law Society of which she processed 3 and found nothing. But she was being bullied by the Head of the Law Society, Kamlesh Bhal and her lawyer was Jill Andrews, a friend and colleague of Anne Molyneux, Masons. Is there anything to be concluded from this merry-go-round - I was eventually told that the files were flooded and given a £200 cheque because it had taken longer than 2 years to process 3 of the potential 28 complaints - no I did not come down with the last shower. The Ombudsman likewise found nothing either. Nor the IPCC concerning the Police Officer who opened a file at Southwark Police and failed to catch any criminals when the evidence was certain at the EAT stage by the failure to cite case precedent in the Judgment on appeal!!!!! You can only appeal on a POINT OF LAW, ie case precedent or statute
Quelle Surprise - I appear surrounded!
Notice the 5 case precedent at the EAT stage. Will provide a copy of the judgment later. (Click here)
This is the CPR Rule 1 (Click here)It has an objective - now check out the current CPR rules - you will not find Equality in them, impartiality refers to experts only, article 6 and fairness does not feature re HRA, and Justice is not substantive either. Proportionality is relative to costs, expediency may mean fast track/multi track and mediation/ADR is still in the rules - even when the game is up and folks have been rumbled in theory and practice and I cant see the issue relating to economy but that might be fees. The later 4 are the Woolf Reforms, the former were pre 1999 and the Access to Justice Act or thereabouts - but surely the parties and the judge if acting independently without fear or favour should be strapped into procedural rules that require equality, impartiality, fairness and justice as an objective to democracy. Currently we do not exist in a democracy because we are holed below the waterline on equality and justice - the ship is sinking due to compromise in the system which is not being uniformly applied aa a rule of law and our professionals are not engaged professionally or ethically or at all with the sole objective of the application of the rule of law - not its compromise which requires to be outlawed from all public domain institutions in the UK / Europe because ADR removes the dispute from the public domain by its very essence and nature - it is always private domain, creating a hidden society. Therefore, if you want safe and just society and democracy remove it by outlawing it as referred above. If you want unsafe and unjust society and not democracy but something else - ask Richard Susskind what is planned as his topic is law and philosophy whereas mine is Jurisprudence - the science and theory of human law - and he has a book End of lawyers or something like that, has a widget which appears to be a risk assessment policy without a rule of law in it and poorly drafted, yes I have seen it - he is advocating dispute avoidance - but disputes will always occur - so what is he upto intellectually - might not be of sound mind and if you really read his articles you might wonder what he is actually on about. He is however, engaged in organised crime and corruption by concealment - so maybe this is what he means by dispute avoidance - ask him.
posted by Lesley McDade at 9:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home