Computer Hacking
Hi folks - I have recently had 6 months of intellectual espionage and computer hacking done to me. I have also been socially engineered into mental health services when I am NOT actually mentally ill. That is because the Police are inept and completely refuse to deal with my issues whilst I appear to be under surveillance - for what - I am not the criminal. Professor Richard Susskind is as well as others linked to him like Lord Henry Woolf of Barnes, Tony Blair ex-PM, Bill Clinton ex-President, David Shapiro, Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg, Lord MacKay of Clashfern and Professor Hazel Genn. There appears to be a lower level - Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross, Cathy James, Catherine Johnson, Edward Johnson, Michael David Ford, Bruce Carr, Sean Brannigan, Rolf Stein, Alison (NOSY) Parker, Robin Shaw, Marie Van Der Zyl, Susan Kelly, Paula Jefferson and Julian (Geoffrey Howard) Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, David Harrell, Keith Wood, Tim Pullen, Jane Betts, Kamlesh Bahl, Jill Andrews, Simon Entwistle and some others. Not quite sure what side Dr Lindsay Farmer, Dr Matthew Weate and CID Officer Steve Davis are on but probably not mine as there is absolutely no reason why they should have not talked to me by now ... that they haven't raises the presumption they are with the criminals and involved in organised crime and corruption, concerted and orchestrated practices presumably because they are thick - hence the reason why I am being hacked - because I am not! Most of these people above are lawyers, barristers, academics and/or involved in the legal profession in some way - you can hardly call it a profession any more and as for ethics - forget it.
Anyway, concerning the Woolf Reforms you are all on NOTICE that you have been scammed by a Jewish plot - contact me direct for further details and evidence if you have not already gleaned the fact from reading the rest of my blog and clicking on bits of evidence I have already supplied - don't worry the documents are all public domain documents they have passed through the discovery process of at least one, or x3 litigations, in the English courts. I am no Snowden or Assange - my documents are perfectly legal and can be relied on as evidence if you would like to sue ... the British Government for instance.
The Masons case was corrupted from the start and they had Counsel Bruce Carr of Devereux Chambers - reported to the Bar Council for appearing to nobble my witness Mr Michael David Ford, Barrister who failed to attend - because he was fully aware the case was corrupt and told me so "respondents go first and they will only deal with the case from the point of transfer". How did he know this? I didn't tell him. Day 1 of the court case Chairperson De Saxe - I am overruling 9 pages of 11 pages of pleading as being not relevant as we will focus on the point of transfer - fact - it happened. Bruce Carr moreover had failed to do discovery properly and only had 1 lever arch file of evidence and pleading whilst I had two lever arch files, and his file only processed from the point of transfer. Noticeably the 40 man hour investigation that Professor Richard Susskind averred he did under cross-examination was not contained within Bruce's evidential bundle, nor did the court enquire where is it then, whilst relying on the fact in the judgment. I still wait to see this 40 man hour investigation material which was overruled as not relevant to proceedings - why would you want to cover up the fact that Cathy James DOES HAVE A LOUD VOICE for which the firm were trying to sack me for gross misconduct for misrepresenting the fact to Anne Glazebrook BUT here's the problem I do not recall misrepresenting anything to Anne Glazebrook or having a conversation with her at all, and I certainly would not misrepresent a true fact if I did make the statement and if I was going to represent anything it would be that she was incompetent. But then maybe its a cover up of the second allegation - that I measured megabytes. Nope I did not, the system measures megabytes by itself (and Susskind alleging to be a computer expert should have known this per se and not tried to achieve self-incrimination which spectacularly backfired - since when was a legal secretary supposed to provide knowledge to an alleged professor - he is thick : you are on notice of it substantively - if you hover your mouse over a document in your directory folder or the folder or highlight all the folders - the system measures the megabytes for you. NOW Professor Richard Susskind is the IT ADVISER TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, sometime Lord Woolf. He could not or ever be the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice on this allegation per se. Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross who brought the allegation did not know how to use their computers which were effectively ornaments on their desks in a computer specialist law firm. Cathy James was knowingly incompetent (see below). If this information got out then the firm would have lost ALL business in relation to Professor Richard Susskind and he would never have got the position of IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. But we KNOW Susskind was operational at an earlier stage of proceedings - the allegation about the Loud Voice was NOT PROVEN as an outcome of the disciplinary proceedings thereby identifying a Scot in the process, aka Susskind. My witness Michael Ford, as barrister, informed this allegation was not even able to be graded as minor misconduct let alone a sackable offence.
For the sake of completeness - the third allegation was that I had breached confidentiality by telling Anne Glazebrook about a confidential memo in the PUBLIC network directory. I did not and do not recall the conversation if it did occur. It would have been highly unlikely of me to have had a conversation with Anne Glazebrook anyway (3 in 6 months and I sat next to her and did not so much as say good morning - I did not like her as she was lazy). But I am a creme de la creme legal secretary and the chances of me discussing my work or someone else's work is highly unlikely. But I did know about the confidential memo - which informs that Julia Elson could not make associateship because she had not done 5 years service and could not comply with company policy having been with the firm for 4 1/2 years - hardly illuminating on substance anyway. BUT it is relevant - Cathy James was the Senior Partner Secretary - she did not have confidential directories as per company policy, I did and we were both on the same training scheme when told to get confidential directories. Cathy James is therefore KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT and clients would not be too happy about hearing that the Senior Partner Secretary did not have confidential directories and was KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT - as well as having a cesspit of a private life, drama queen, backstabber and general little bitch who nobody liked and who most had had enough of her. She also was known by me to not be able to use the computer properly, hence KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT is actually quite serious - especially when Anne Molyneux was trying to promote her as Secretary of the Year in London: as well as make her Group Secretary when she did not even apply for the post, whilst myself and Catherine Johnson had applied and were both creme de la creme legal secretaries at the time - I was advanced trained by Dundas & Wilson CS the top law firm in Scotland and was one of the few qualified legal secretaries in Scotland too. I have a copy of Catherine Johnson's CV and she is highly qualified and capable too, and I would have been happy for either of us to get the Group Secretary position. Catherine had 3 false allegations of de minimus content too and was sacked. It was Catherine Johnson who told me about the confidential memo and I am wondering was I stitched up as Catherine ditched me as a friend on my birthday a few years ago and I have absolutely no idea as to why. But back to the boss Anne Molyneux - the substance of the memo identifies the fact that AM was not complying with company policy either. Equity Partner - Partnership Act - jointly liable in England - shut down the firm of Masons now Pinsent Masons (also S J Berwin & Co or whatsoever the partnership have become, Kingsford Stacey, Davenport Lyons and Beachcrofts (all represented S J Berwin/Critchlow/Carnell/Insley/Wood/Harrell) - and are involved in the organised crime and corruption - believed to be insurance fraud, concerted and orchestrated practises and connivance and collusion - I want practising certificates off all of those above and everyone associated at equity partnership level - these firms stink professionally: hence the need for the Police - 29 lawyers were reported to the Law Society - others still need to be reported - the Law Society failed to process most of them because Jane Betts my caseworker was being bullied by Kamlesh Bahl who was represented by a colleague Jill Andrews - conflict of interest - there was a news blackout - why?.
So Susskind and Masons partnership set upon a course with advice from their Counsel to corrupt the case, google Susskind I suspect he calls it "dispute avoidance". It is concealment, perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office, ie criminal offences for which I have been asking the police to make arrests for 20 years. He is a British Spy and I am not - I am a paralegal and now a Legal Activist in Jurisprudence at a scientific level with a fundamental belief in the application of the rule of law - so long as its just. Things are escalating ... computer hacking and intellectual espionage, falsification of my medical records, absolute abuse of my human rights including assault, and I am socially engineered into poverty - I live on benefits at approx £9,500 a year which is welfare, housing and reduced Council Tax - I don't even make the tax free threshold of £10,500 and Iain Duncan Smith is trying to clawback £7000 which I do not owe - the DWP are the benefit fraudsters not me - I earn my benefits as I work for free doing volunteering which is value added in society and has a cost measure.
So far as the litigations are concerned there have been 3. A mediation involving Critchlow / Carnell / Insley /S J Berwin & Co offered me 10% of my losses which was wages only, I did not submit my economic loss account to the mediation which is millions - I turned the offer down. SJB were aware in 1998 the price was £10m. Its substantially increased since then. However, how did a mediator manage to get an offer of 10% out of Insurers but a Judge - Sir Robert Owen QC failed to find personal injury or breach of contract or professional negligence or sex discrimination. He found nothing thereby identifying he was bent as logically he should have found 10%. All other judges have been bent too like Lord Justice Gibson and Lord Justice Mance or Slynn of Hadley, Hope of Craighead and Hobhouse of Woodborough : two of whom had conflicts of interests and failed to declare them at the House of Lords level. But Mr Justice Morison was spectacular he failed to provide any rule of law in a case where one case precedent was read verbatim to him as a ratio decidendi and in total 5 were located in the APPEAL document - you can only appeal on a point of law - so where is it in the judgment at the Employment APPEAL Stage and why do Police Officers have a difficulty in grasping this as fact when being reported to them: you might also ask why do Judges have a problem grasping this as fact: especially Sir Robert Owen QC - note: Sir and QC - how bloody thick do you have to be these days to get on the judicial circuit / bench. Anne Molyneux appears to have managed it too - Judge at Isleworth - how did she get through Police vetting and Law Society vetting and who nominated her as Judges are unelected. Why am I socially engineered on to welfare benefits when I am one of the most intelligent women in law in the world - see my research paper "ADR the Achillies Heel of a Democracy" (on the blog below).
But for me its not about the money. Its about stopping WW3 because Cathy Jame's incompetence lead to Susskind corrupting a court case - my solicitor Louise Christian of Christian Fisher (Catherine Johnson's solicitor at the time too instructing Michael Ford of Counsel to represent both of us independently) put it succinctly in a letter to Masons "total failure of management". (They refuse to release Catherine Johnson's transcript of her hearing, hence Michael Ford is required as a witness of fact concerning her and myself and appears nobbled or nobbling whilst associated with Geoffrey Robertson QC's Chambers at Doughty Street - he has moved on to Old Square Chambers under John Hendy QC (incidentally Tim Pullen, Respondents' Counsel for S J Berwin & Co and others uses his Godolphin Chambers address on documents whilst actually being associated with Geoffrey Robertson QC's Chambers at Doughty Street and GR will not take part in the Bar Council complaints process concerning Ford who has evaded in his response concerning stalking and failure to attend as a witness - is he on a frolic of his own or nobbled - whilst Bruce Carr's respondent's counsel response informs there was an intermediary Jeremy McMullen QC - so what are the Police failing to do - omitting to act when you have a duty to act is professional negligence - reading would be nice x 3 cases in 15 lever arch files before Sir Robert Owen QC who informed he did actually read it too!) So, to recap - "total failure of management" concerning Masons and Professor Susskind; X 3 court cases are "total failure of the judiciary". We now have "total failure of Europe" on a humanitarian crisis with an inability to put in place a Regulation or use our nous in absentia of a Regulation to do the right thing especially in Hungary and the UK, anticipated next is total failure of the world. Bill Clinton put in place ADR in the judicial system via the Woolf Reforms in the UK (my dissertation and essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods for Dr Lindsay Farmer at Birbeck College, University of London in 1993). Woolf and Susskind hooked up - so did the firms of Masons and S J Berwin & Co and the result was litigations 2 and 3 (the "Shit" Cases - Sir Robert Owen QC was the judge on the last case in 2014 with a request to David Cameron PM to deal with three things (a) Parliamentary Sovereignty and public inquiry; (b) Regulation on my research to impact in the whole of Europe to rectify the scam in the system put there by the Woolf Reforms / Clinton / Shapiro and 5 unknowns stated via an inhouse seminar on ADR at S J Berwin & Co which was videod and (c) an APPEAL of my case before Owen once the Woolf Reforms and corruption is removed from the system - I am still waiting for all three).
Lastly, I do participatory democracy - I have the midas touch ... its worth mega ... for another time perhaps.
You are on notice you have been SCAMMED by the Woolf Reforms with a raised presumption thus ...
Probability that a third of the legal profession of the UK are completely deficient in intellect and are as thick as shit and are completely spoonfed on ADR/IDS/informal justice/mediation
Probability that a third of the legal profession are brainwashed by ADR/IDS/Informal Justice/Mediation but could if they engaged brain work it out
Probability that a third of the legal profession know exactly what is going on and are either wilfully blind to the obvious or do not have a voice
Its about the APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF LAW - NOT ITS NON-APPLICATION, IE COMPROMISE - YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LAWYERS - YOU DO LAW DEGREES TO TEACH YOU HOW TO APPLY THE RULE OF LAW!!!!
MEDIATION /ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION / INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT / INFORMAL JUSTICE - all the same thing is about compromise of the rule of law - there are psychological techniques used in the process, there is no law anything goes possibly even criminality, no professionalism or ethics - the mediator is neutral - the parties decide the outcome not a judge - the remedy can be wider than the application of the rule of law and you will be gagged by a compromise agreement - guess what - that is called a coverup. As a lawyer who is intelligent would you really really really advise your clients to do this!!!!! The objective of mediation is "individualistic" whereas litigation (public) and arbitration (private) are universal. As an individualistic mechanism it lowers standards in society - so why would you do this. It also hides the dispute and removes it to the private domain - why would you do this if you want to live in a SAFE AND JUST SOCIETY. A safe and just society creates DEMOCRACY - we are not currently a DEMOCRACY but what we are I don't know - ask Susskind - he is a Professor of Law and Philosophy whilst I am a Legal Activist in Jurisprudence. Susskind is a nutter and criminal.
In law, you can always SETTLE OUT OF COURT" - so why do you need to pay to resolve the dispute between the parties when they can do this for themselves anyway.
How thick is thick in the legal profession - there are some real planks - 4 by 4's. Are you still going to admit your a nutter too or have you learned something you should have worked out for yourselves a long time ago. We are invaded ... Defence of the Realm - Jewish plot - enemy within. I am not a spy just intelligent.
You are on notice ... Woolf Reforms or whatsoever they are called in your country is a Jewish scam. I want the Police to arrest and charge and put before the CPS, and thereafter a Judge, the people above on various criminal offences which they have been notified of over the last 20 years - they are all still extant as from Sir Robert Owen QC's refusal to process organised crime and corruption in February 2014 in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. I am waiting ... and my bill for lost wages is £1m to age 67 so IDS expect a copy of my forensic accounts soon.
I also confirm that in the last 6 months, I have been poisoned and tortured and have total human rights abuse. I am socially engineered onto a mental health ward but I AM NOT MENTALLY ILL. Angela Graham, Solicitor did the deed and her instruction was to process a s.44 on APPEAL - did not happen by 11.2.16. Placed a document before Sheriff Clark on 11.2.16 and he refused to process it. Took it to the Procurator Fiscal's office and they also refused to process it but told me to make a statement to the Police. The Police saw the document and refused to take a statement. I thereafter refused to participate in a CTO because my solicitor AG was instructed to do a S.44 but tried to process a CTO without instruction - she came off the record when she was found to be Professionally Negligent. The Law Society and others were informed as Report 6 went to many, as did 5 other reports detailing feedback/suggestions/ideas/compliments and complaints re the NHS processing of people in a mental health hospital - a MWC Social Worker spoke to folks on the ward, there are some improvements but not many as an outcome and no outcome report has been provided to me as a consequence of my activities, not even from the Law Society. One MSP Rhoda Grant offered to take matters up, but I have heard nothing further. So I refused to take part in the CTO hearing on the premis that my human rights were abused as I had a right under article 6 of the Human Rights Act to a fair hearing - of the s44 prior to any CTO. They put me on an interim CTO in my absence as I refused to participate because I wanted hostile witness orders Michael Ford and Dr Lindsay Farmer plus CCTV evidence. The current Statute cannot provide for witnesses or evidence to be before a CTO hearing = automatically unfair. A CTO hearing has now occurred against my better judgment - even when they were notified of torture, human rights abuse and told the hearing was substantively contrary to the Human Rights Act article 6, they said I was mentally ill - there is absolutely no evidence of mental health disability whatsoever - there is evidence of high blood pressure and I am refusing legitimately to take medication for this because when I take it - it goes up, when I don't it goes down - whose the nutter - not me. So I am currently on a mental health ward because I have high blood pressure and refuse to take medication for it - which is justified. I have also been computer hacked and 3800 emails have been stolen from my windowslivemail sent box. A folder of 700 emails have been stolen concerning my volunteering activities. A RSS feed of 198 NHS documents has been inserted into my windowsliveaccount which I did not put there. A further 269 unopened emails have been stolen from my outlook/hotmail account. My blog folder of my manuscript 700 page book in two formats, research and other material has been stolen from my hard drive. A file of three electronically held court cases in England including privileged documentation has been stolen from my hard drive. A folder of college papers has been stolen including an official secret. A folder of University material has been stolen too and other information has been deleted from my email outlook account in front of me. The person(s) have to be within a 30 metre radius of my dongle and therefore a NHS ward. A nurse let slip I had sent 21 emails, but I had not I sent 3 and bcc one of them - she does not have the nous to do it, the person is sophisticated in IT - eh Richard / Cathy / Michael / Lindsay / Bill / Hillary / Henry / Charles - its been a tad lucrative hasn't it - cheque!. The NHS refuse to get the police involved and it was detailed in the paper that went to Sheriff Clark, the Procurator Fiscal and the Police who have done nothing. I have also been "listened into" and millions of pounds worth of ideas has been stolen, some now coming through the media. I know who it is and the list is at the top of this blog post. I have been told by a second opinion Consultant who lost on every issue he raised and still said I was mentally ill when I am clearly not, that it is because I am highly offensive. I find this highly offensive because I am merely reporting what has been going on which the media are not processing and it is going to get even more highly offensive until it is sorted out ... Now I am hoping this is not the progress of the new proposed Investigatory Powers Bill - I wonder who thought that one up as I am being attacked and I perceive it to be by nutters who are organised criminals and involved in corruption. Why do we need an investigatory powers bill anyway - what is the Police for - they can ask - people usually quite willing to give them information, or a solicitor could assist, or they call you a suspect and ask you in to see them - they can read too!! Judges can make sure they have the information in the DISCOVERY bundle that they need to DISCOVER the judgment within the four corners of the litigation or arbitration: they are also assisted by expert witnesses and cross examination and the parties themselves provide the pleading and the evidence and the witnesses (when they turn up Michael - not like you don't know the reason for being a witness - so why did you not turn up - something to tell the police perhaps). Your frontline defence mechanism is your court process - so why would you not want to use it to establish who the enemies within are. If its a mediation then you know its a coverup! No need to hack or listen in or steal - who is benefitting under this investigatory powers bill and if so am I the pilot as I want a very large cheque if I am plus arrests. I wonder how I lower my blood pressure naturally ...
I am waiting for Parliamentary Sovereignty and a public inquiry - sooner rather than later. I am also waiting for a Regulation to impact in the whole of Europe and an APPEAL of my court cases in England. I now have to arrange two article 6 hearings concerning mental health law in Scotland before a Sheriff Principle on appeal .., the raised presumption is he will be corrupt per se if it follows every case so far ...
Just so you know the way I am thinking: some clues: Japanese plus Jewish - World War 1, 2 and 3. Interregum. Another time.
Anyway, concerning the Woolf Reforms you are all on NOTICE that you have been scammed by a Jewish plot - contact me direct for further details and evidence if you have not already gleaned the fact from reading the rest of my blog and clicking on bits of evidence I have already supplied - don't worry the documents are all public domain documents they have passed through the discovery process of at least one, or x3 litigations, in the English courts. I am no Snowden or Assange - my documents are perfectly legal and can be relied on as evidence if you would like to sue ... the British Government for instance.
The Masons case was corrupted from the start and they had Counsel Bruce Carr of Devereux Chambers - reported to the Bar Council for appearing to nobble my witness Mr Michael David Ford, Barrister who failed to attend - because he was fully aware the case was corrupt and told me so "respondents go first and they will only deal with the case from the point of transfer". How did he know this? I didn't tell him. Day 1 of the court case Chairperson De Saxe - I am overruling 9 pages of 11 pages of pleading as being not relevant as we will focus on the point of transfer - fact - it happened. Bruce Carr moreover had failed to do discovery properly and only had 1 lever arch file of evidence and pleading whilst I had two lever arch files, and his file only processed from the point of transfer. Noticeably the 40 man hour investigation that Professor Richard Susskind averred he did under cross-examination was not contained within Bruce's evidential bundle, nor did the court enquire where is it then, whilst relying on the fact in the judgment. I still wait to see this 40 man hour investigation material which was overruled as not relevant to proceedings - why would you want to cover up the fact that Cathy James DOES HAVE A LOUD VOICE for which the firm were trying to sack me for gross misconduct for misrepresenting the fact to Anne Glazebrook BUT here's the problem I do not recall misrepresenting anything to Anne Glazebrook or having a conversation with her at all, and I certainly would not misrepresent a true fact if I did make the statement and if I was going to represent anything it would be that she was incompetent. But then maybe its a cover up of the second allegation - that I measured megabytes. Nope I did not, the system measures megabytes by itself (and Susskind alleging to be a computer expert should have known this per se and not tried to achieve self-incrimination which spectacularly backfired - since when was a legal secretary supposed to provide knowledge to an alleged professor - he is thick : you are on notice of it substantively - if you hover your mouse over a document in your directory folder or the folder or highlight all the folders - the system measures the megabytes for you. NOW Professor Richard Susskind is the IT ADVISER TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, sometime Lord Woolf. He could not or ever be the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice on this allegation per se. Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross who brought the allegation did not know how to use their computers which were effectively ornaments on their desks in a computer specialist law firm. Cathy James was knowingly incompetent (see below). If this information got out then the firm would have lost ALL business in relation to Professor Richard Susskind and he would never have got the position of IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. But we KNOW Susskind was operational at an earlier stage of proceedings - the allegation about the Loud Voice was NOT PROVEN as an outcome of the disciplinary proceedings thereby identifying a Scot in the process, aka Susskind. My witness Michael Ford, as barrister, informed this allegation was not even able to be graded as minor misconduct let alone a sackable offence.
For the sake of completeness - the third allegation was that I had breached confidentiality by telling Anne Glazebrook about a confidential memo in the PUBLIC network directory. I did not and do not recall the conversation if it did occur. It would have been highly unlikely of me to have had a conversation with Anne Glazebrook anyway (3 in 6 months and I sat next to her and did not so much as say good morning - I did not like her as she was lazy). But I am a creme de la creme legal secretary and the chances of me discussing my work or someone else's work is highly unlikely. But I did know about the confidential memo - which informs that Julia Elson could not make associateship because she had not done 5 years service and could not comply with company policy having been with the firm for 4 1/2 years - hardly illuminating on substance anyway. BUT it is relevant - Cathy James was the Senior Partner Secretary - she did not have confidential directories as per company policy, I did and we were both on the same training scheme when told to get confidential directories. Cathy James is therefore KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT and clients would not be too happy about hearing that the Senior Partner Secretary did not have confidential directories and was KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT - as well as having a cesspit of a private life, drama queen, backstabber and general little bitch who nobody liked and who most had had enough of her. She also was known by me to not be able to use the computer properly, hence KNOWINGLY INCOMPETENT is actually quite serious - especially when Anne Molyneux was trying to promote her as Secretary of the Year in London: as well as make her Group Secretary when she did not even apply for the post, whilst myself and Catherine Johnson had applied and were both creme de la creme legal secretaries at the time - I was advanced trained by Dundas & Wilson CS the top law firm in Scotland and was one of the few qualified legal secretaries in Scotland too. I have a copy of Catherine Johnson's CV and she is highly qualified and capable too, and I would have been happy for either of us to get the Group Secretary position. Catherine had 3 false allegations of de minimus content too and was sacked. It was Catherine Johnson who told me about the confidential memo and I am wondering was I stitched up as Catherine ditched me as a friend on my birthday a few years ago and I have absolutely no idea as to why. But back to the boss Anne Molyneux - the substance of the memo identifies the fact that AM was not complying with company policy either. Equity Partner - Partnership Act - jointly liable in England - shut down the firm of Masons now Pinsent Masons (also S J Berwin & Co or whatsoever the partnership have become, Kingsford Stacey, Davenport Lyons and Beachcrofts (all represented S J Berwin/Critchlow/Carnell/Insley/Wood/Harrell) - and are involved in the organised crime and corruption - believed to be insurance fraud, concerted and orchestrated practises and connivance and collusion - I want practising certificates off all of those above and everyone associated at equity partnership level - these firms stink professionally: hence the need for the Police - 29 lawyers were reported to the Law Society - others still need to be reported - the Law Society failed to process most of them because Jane Betts my caseworker was being bullied by Kamlesh Bahl who was represented by a colleague Jill Andrews - conflict of interest - there was a news blackout - why?.
So Susskind and Masons partnership set upon a course with advice from their Counsel to corrupt the case, google Susskind I suspect he calls it "dispute avoidance". It is concealment, perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office, ie criminal offences for which I have been asking the police to make arrests for 20 years. He is a British Spy and I am not - I am a paralegal and now a Legal Activist in Jurisprudence at a scientific level with a fundamental belief in the application of the rule of law - so long as its just. Things are escalating ... computer hacking and intellectual espionage, falsification of my medical records, absolute abuse of my human rights including assault, and I am socially engineered into poverty - I live on benefits at approx £9,500 a year which is welfare, housing and reduced Council Tax - I don't even make the tax free threshold of £10,500 and Iain Duncan Smith is trying to clawback £7000 which I do not owe - the DWP are the benefit fraudsters not me - I earn my benefits as I work for free doing volunteering which is value added in society and has a cost measure.
So far as the litigations are concerned there have been 3. A mediation involving Critchlow / Carnell / Insley /S J Berwin & Co offered me 10% of my losses which was wages only, I did not submit my economic loss account to the mediation which is millions - I turned the offer down. SJB were aware in 1998 the price was £10m. Its substantially increased since then. However, how did a mediator manage to get an offer of 10% out of Insurers but a Judge - Sir Robert Owen QC failed to find personal injury or breach of contract or professional negligence or sex discrimination. He found nothing thereby identifying he was bent as logically he should have found 10%. All other judges have been bent too like Lord Justice Gibson and Lord Justice Mance or Slynn of Hadley, Hope of Craighead and Hobhouse of Woodborough : two of whom had conflicts of interests and failed to declare them at the House of Lords level. But Mr Justice Morison was spectacular he failed to provide any rule of law in a case where one case precedent was read verbatim to him as a ratio decidendi and in total 5 were located in the APPEAL document - you can only appeal on a point of law - so where is it in the judgment at the Employment APPEAL Stage and why do Police Officers have a difficulty in grasping this as fact when being reported to them: you might also ask why do Judges have a problem grasping this as fact: especially Sir Robert Owen QC - note: Sir and QC - how bloody thick do you have to be these days to get on the judicial circuit / bench. Anne Molyneux appears to have managed it too - Judge at Isleworth - how did she get through Police vetting and Law Society vetting and who nominated her as Judges are unelected. Why am I socially engineered on to welfare benefits when I am one of the most intelligent women in law in the world - see my research paper "ADR the Achillies Heel of a Democracy" (on the blog below).
But for me its not about the money. Its about stopping WW3 because Cathy Jame's incompetence lead to Susskind corrupting a court case - my solicitor Louise Christian of Christian Fisher (Catherine Johnson's solicitor at the time too instructing Michael Ford of Counsel to represent both of us independently) put it succinctly in a letter to Masons "total failure of management". (They refuse to release Catherine Johnson's transcript of her hearing, hence Michael Ford is required as a witness of fact concerning her and myself and appears nobbled or nobbling whilst associated with Geoffrey Robertson QC's Chambers at Doughty Street - he has moved on to Old Square Chambers under John Hendy QC (incidentally Tim Pullen, Respondents' Counsel for S J Berwin & Co and others uses his Godolphin Chambers address on documents whilst actually being associated with Geoffrey Robertson QC's Chambers at Doughty Street and GR will not take part in the Bar Council complaints process concerning Ford who has evaded in his response concerning stalking and failure to attend as a witness - is he on a frolic of his own or nobbled - whilst Bruce Carr's respondent's counsel response informs there was an intermediary Jeremy McMullen QC - so what are the Police failing to do - omitting to act when you have a duty to act is professional negligence - reading would be nice x 3 cases in 15 lever arch files before Sir Robert Owen QC who informed he did actually read it too!) So, to recap - "total failure of management" concerning Masons and Professor Susskind; X 3 court cases are "total failure of the judiciary". We now have "total failure of Europe" on a humanitarian crisis with an inability to put in place a Regulation or use our nous in absentia of a Regulation to do the right thing especially in Hungary and the UK, anticipated next is total failure of the world. Bill Clinton put in place ADR in the judicial system via the Woolf Reforms in the UK (my dissertation and essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods for Dr Lindsay Farmer at Birbeck College, University of London in 1993). Woolf and Susskind hooked up - so did the firms of Masons and S J Berwin & Co and the result was litigations 2 and 3 (the "Shit" Cases - Sir Robert Owen QC was the judge on the last case in 2014 with a request to David Cameron PM to deal with three things (a) Parliamentary Sovereignty and public inquiry; (b) Regulation on my research to impact in the whole of Europe to rectify the scam in the system put there by the Woolf Reforms / Clinton / Shapiro and 5 unknowns stated via an inhouse seminar on ADR at S J Berwin & Co which was videod and (c) an APPEAL of my case before Owen once the Woolf Reforms and corruption is removed from the system - I am still waiting for all three).
Lastly, I do participatory democracy - I have the midas touch ... its worth mega ... for another time perhaps.
You are on notice you have been SCAMMED by the Woolf Reforms with a raised presumption thus ...
Probability that a third of the legal profession of the UK are completely deficient in intellect and are as thick as shit and are completely spoonfed on ADR/IDS/informal justice/mediation
Probability that a third of the legal profession are brainwashed by ADR/IDS/Informal Justice/Mediation but could if they engaged brain work it out
Probability that a third of the legal profession know exactly what is going on and are either wilfully blind to the obvious or do not have a voice
Its about the APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF LAW - NOT ITS NON-APPLICATION, IE COMPROMISE - YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LAWYERS - YOU DO LAW DEGREES TO TEACH YOU HOW TO APPLY THE RULE OF LAW!!!!
MEDIATION /ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION / INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT / INFORMAL JUSTICE - all the same thing is about compromise of the rule of law - there are psychological techniques used in the process, there is no law anything goes possibly even criminality, no professionalism or ethics - the mediator is neutral - the parties decide the outcome not a judge - the remedy can be wider than the application of the rule of law and you will be gagged by a compromise agreement - guess what - that is called a coverup. As a lawyer who is intelligent would you really really really advise your clients to do this!!!!! The objective of mediation is "individualistic" whereas litigation (public) and arbitration (private) are universal. As an individualistic mechanism it lowers standards in society - so why would you do this. It also hides the dispute and removes it to the private domain - why would you do this if you want to live in a SAFE AND JUST SOCIETY. A safe and just society creates DEMOCRACY - we are not currently a DEMOCRACY but what we are I don't know - ask Susskind - he is a Professor of Law and Philosophy whilst I am a Legal Activist in Jurisprudence. Susskind is a nutter and criminal.
In law, you can always SETTLE OUT OF COURT" - so why do you need to pay to resolve the dispute between the parties when they can do this for themselves anyway.
How thick is thick in the legal profession - there are some real planks - 4 by 4's. Are you still going to admit your a nutter too or have you learned something you should have worked out for yourselves a long time ago. We are invaded ... Defence of the Realm - Jewish plot - enemy within. I am not a spy just intelligent.
You are on notice ... Woolf Reforms or whatsoever they are called in your country is a Jewish scam. I want the Police to arrest and charge and put before the CPS, and thereafter a Judge, the people above on various criminal offences which they have been notified of over the last 20 years - they are all still extant as from Sir Robert Owen QC's refusal to process organised crime and corruption in February 2014 in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. I am waiting ... and my bill for lost wages is £1m to age 67 so IDS expect a copy of my forensic accounts soon.
I also confirm that in the last 6 months, I have been poisoned and tortured and have total human rights abuse. I am socially engineered onto a mental health ward but I AM NOT MENTALLY ILL. Angela Graham, Solicitor did the deed and her instruction was to process a s.44 on APPEAL - did not happen by 11.2.16. Placed a document before Sheriff Clark on 11.2.16 and he refused to process it. Took it to the Procurator Fiscal's office and they also refused to process it but told me to make a statement to the Police. The Police saw the document and refused to take a statement. I thereafter refused to participate in a CTO because my solicitor AG was instructed to do a S.44 but tried to process a CTO without instruction - she came off the record when she was found to be Professionally Negligent. The Law Society and others were informed as Report 6 went to many, as did 5 other reports detailing feedback/suggestions/ideas/compliments and complaints re the NHS processing of people in a mental health hospital - a MWC Social Worker spoke to folks on the ward, there are some improvements but not many as an outcome and no outcome report has been provided to me as a consequence of my activities, not even from the Law Society. One MSP Rhoda Grant offered to take matters up, but I have heard nothing further. So I refused to take part in the CTO hearing on the premis that my human rights were abused as I had a right under article 6 of the Human Rights Act to a fair hearing - of the s44 prior to any CTO. They put me on an interim CTO in my absence as I refused to participate because I wanted hostile witness orders Michael Ford and Dr Lindsay Farmer plus CCTV evidence. The current Statute cannot provide for witnesses or evidence to be before a CTO hearing = automatically unfair. A CTO hearing has now occurred against my better judgment - even when they were notified of torture, human rights abuse and told the hearing was substantively contrary to the Human Rights Act article 6, they said I was mentally ill - there is absolutely no evidence of mental health disability whatsoever - there is evidence of high blood pressure and I am refusing legitimately to take medication for this because when I take it - it goes up, when I don't it goes down - whose the nutter - not me. So I am currently on a mental health ward because I have high blood pressure and refuse to take medication for it - which is justified. I have also been computer hacked and 3800 emails have been stolen from my windowslivemail sent box. A folder of 700 emails have been stolen concerning my volunteering activities. A RSS feed of 198 NHS documents has been inserted into my windowsliveaccount which I did not put there. A further 269 unopened emails have been stolen from my outlook/hotmail account. My blog folder of my manuscript 700 page book in two formats, research and other material has been stolen from my hard drive. A file of three electronically held court cases in England including privileged documentation has been stolen from my hard drive. A folder of college papers has been stolen including an official secret. A folder of University material has been stolen too and other information has been deleted from my email outlook account in front of me. The person(s) have to be within a 30 metre radius of my dongle and therefore a NHS ward. A nurse let slip I had sent 21 emails, but I had not I sent 3 and bcc one of them - she does not have the nous to do it, the person is sophisticated in IT - eh Richard / Cathy / Michael / Lindsay / Bill / Hillary / Henry / Charles - its been a tad lucrative hasn't it - cheque!. The NHS refuse to get the police involved and it was detailed in the paper that went to Sheriff Clark, the Procurator Fiscal and the Police who have done nothing. I have also been "listened into" and millions of pounds worth of ideas has been stolen, some now coming through the media. I know who it is and the list is at the top of this blog post. I have been told by a second opinion Consultant who lost on every issue he raised and still said I was mentally ill when I am clearly not, that it is because I am highly offensive. I find this highly offensive because I am merely reporting what has been going on which the media are not processing and it is going to get even more highly offensive until it is sorted out ... Now I am hoping this is not the progress of the new proposed Investigatory Powers Bill - I wonder who thought that one up as I am being attacked and I perceive it to be by nutters who are organised criminals and involved in corruption. Why do we need an investigatory powers bill anyway - what is the Police for - they can ask - people usually quite willing to give them information, or a solicitor could assist, or they call you a suspect and ask you in to see them - they can read too!! Judges can make sure they have the information in the DISCOVERY bundle that they need to DISCOVER the judgment within the four corners of the litigation or arbitration: they are also assisted by expert witnesses and cross examination and the parties themselves provide the pleading and the evidence and the witnesses (when they turn up Michael - not like you don't know the reason for being a witness - so why did you not turn up - something to tell the police perhaps). Your frontline defence mechanism is your court process - so why would you not want to use it to establish who the enemies within are. If its a mediation then you know its a coverup! No need to hack or listen in or steal - who is benefitting under this investigatory powers bill and if so am I the pilot as I want a very large cheque if I am plus arrests. I wonder how I lower my blood pressure naturally ...
I am waiting for Parliamentary Sovereignty and a public inquiry - sooner rather than later. I am also waiting for a Regulation to impact in the whole of Europe and an APPEAL of my court cases in England. I now have to arrange two article 6 hearings concerning mental health law in Scotland before a Sheriff Principle on appeal .., the raised presumption is he will be corrupt per se if it follows every case so far ...
Just so you know the way I am thinking: some clues: Japanese plus Jewish - World War 1, 2 and 3. Interregum. Another time.
posted by Lesley McDade at 10:38 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home