Thursday, May 26, 2016

Virtual Court

Hi there.  I uploaded my court case against Masons many years ago on File Save but unfortunately the host closed down.  I was probably one of the first to do a virtual court by uploading public domain documents known as the "pleadings bundle" on to a blog after the fact.  Anyway, the last 6 months have been upsetting for me as I have been consistently hacked and assaulted.  I am currently socially engineered into mental health services but am NOT actually mentally ill, although I have been forced to take medication against my will.  I do now have a solicitor on the case, but the first solicitor I had stitched me up such that I have two article 6 human rights abuse issues as well as a right to liberty issue and right not to be tortured.  Anyway, I know who is doing the issues, I just have some difficulty in proving it.

That said, I don't have any difficulty proving that a perversion of the course of justice occurred on the Masons case - check out the EAT Decision by HHJ Morison - there is no case precedent in the judgment - yet one was read verbatim to him and five existed in the appeal pleading document and several were contained in the skeleton (which you don't currently have) because my computer has been hacked.  If for any reason you would like to see any documents then let me know as they are all public domain material having passed through a "discovery" process which includes evidence bundles x 2.  Email is the best way to contact me.

The upshot is that some may perceive they have got away with criminality including misconduct in public office possibly because there is or was a 16 year rule on criminal offences in England anyway - but my LLB law degree is a bit out of date (1997) so things may have moved on somewhat .... and they did.  I also sued S J Berwin & Co, lawyers and others TWICE: did you know you can have a one sided sex discrimination case - chase me for evidence if you like!  Its called organised crime and corruption.  But here's the rub, the third litigation placed all of the Masons documents and the documents in the second litigation into the DISCOVERY BUNDLE - all 15 lever arch files - and the hearing before Sir Robert Owen QC which was also corrupt and contrary to article 6 of the HRA 1998 was heard in February 2014.  - kinda knocks the 16 year rule on the head as it is now active again - all 3 litigations - hence the request for Parliamentary Sovreignty and a public inquiry and APPEAL when the Woolf Reforms are removed from the English & Welsh judicial system - my cases do the practical to my research via my dissertation, ie theory for which I received a 2:1, ie that the judicial system of England & Wales is wrecked.

So, I will upload some documents today on the Masons pleading and possibly another day on the S J Berwin & Co pleadings x 2.  As such you are on notice that Professor Richard Susskind OBE is an utter bastard and involved in criminality - organised crime, concerted and orchestrated practices and so far he has got away with it because he is a British spy: like I give a damn when he is an "enemy within" - see also my research on the Woolf Reforms - another "enemy within".  Both are located at the level of the Lord Chief Justice, one as IT adviser - hence potentially sophisticated enough to hack my computer, but not knowledgeable enough to know how to measure megabytes one of the allegiations against me, such that the system does it for itself - how did he get the job of IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice when bringing false allegations against me - organised crime and corruption is how - misconduct in public office with people presuming that because he is a Professor that he actually is intelligent - not - according to my evidence bundle.  At all material time he could have settled out of court - he did not and therefore the firm of Masons, and possibly its merged Pinsent Masons are JOINTLY liable under the old Partnership Act and should really be shut down for criminality - you may be wondering why not call the Police - did that many times - they still have not caught the buggers - BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY CANNOT READ.  Still live in hope - lots of uploaded documents coming up.

When it started to go wrong - 1993 Bullying instance with Carmela Inguanta (Click here)

Removal of the warning given for making a complaint about bullying in Anne Molyneux's Department (Click here)

Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross allegations - there having another go - serious mismanagement (Click here)

Hearing in 1995 with Michael Ford, barrister( Mr Michael Ford Barrister is a riveting read, truly on form doing "softly softly" when his instruction was "heads on plates" and must have been delighted he won such that he failed to attend the IT as a witness when MOST necessary, whilst informing that (a) Respondents go first and (b) they will only deal with the case from the point of transfer establishing that he had a reason why he was not turning up - one hopes not little brown envelopes as I am still waiting for the reason! especially as the Bar Complaints are not an easy read relating to evasion - see organised crime and corruption post in November 2015 concerning barristers activities x 3).

Appeal hearing 1995 - NB Anne Molyneux should not have been able to become a Judge if the Law Society and Police had vetted properly - judges are unelected so who nominated her: likewise how did Richard Susskind become IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice without organised crime and corruption by way of concealment of the last 5 documents

This is what its all about apparently - CONFIDENTIAL MEMO (Click here)

Cannot locate an electronic copy of the Affidavit which is a bit bizarre.

Richard Susskind Transcript otherwise known as "METALIPISIS - the reversal of cause and effect - I am still waiting to see the 40 man hour investigation material - perhaps the Police would like to see it too - why not sack CATHY "Knowingly incompetent", why attempt to transfer me unlawfully

Richard Susskind Witness Statement

Pleading prepared by Rolf Stein of Pannone Pritchard Englefield (Click here)

Respondent's [for Masons - Bruce Carr of Devereux Chambers] Submissions (Click here)

Industrial Tribunal Judgment - this is being covered up and is organised crime and corruption (Click here)

Employment Appeal Tribunal (Click here)

The Skeleton Argument(Click here)Notice the skeleton and Appeal document has cited case precedent, one of which London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman ratio decidendi was read verbatim to the court on insistance by me and therefore should be located in the judgment: issue organised crime and corruption made out - see next document and Lawtel. Also bear in mind that the Woolf Reforms are not enacted until the Access to Justice Act 1999 - so why am I being subjected to them - see Lawtel Judge Peter Clarke.

Judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Morison (Click here)

Lawtel of EAT Decision (Click here)

Applicant pleading to Court of Appeal [before Gibson/Mance] (Click here)

Court of Appeal Mechanical and Engineers Transcript of hearing before Mr Justice Gibson and Mr Justice Mance (Click here)

Petition to the House of Lords (Click here)

Cashed Cheque (Click here) - this may be a constitutional issue concerniing tradition that a Queen (of at least Scotland) has to provide equality to her subjects to hold the Crown.  By the cashing of this cheque I should have received equality but did not do so - see further documents below.

Listing Prayers of the House of Lords -TWICE - Bishop of Derby and Bishop of Birmingham (Click here)

House of Lords Dismissal of the Petition [Respondent's [Siobhan Cross wrote a letter to the court - not held electronically at moment] (Click here)

Lane v Esdaile used as blocking case precedent which is 100 years old.  However, Woolf Reforms implemented which makes this case obsolete as Woolf Reforms premised on "Access to Justice" and Justice.  Cheque was cashed on the premis of "Access to Justice" even without leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.  The issue was perversion of the course of justice by the EAT decision

Name of the Judges sitting in the House of Lords on the case (Click here) - Lord Hope of Craighead (who failed to disclose a conflict of interest via the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists and RS) and Lord Slynn of Hadley (who may have had a conflict of interest via Kings College, London and RS) and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - no apparent issues.

Note the methodology and timing of documents: the Woolf Reforms were not enacted until the Access to Justice Act came into being in 1999. So why was I subjected to (a) skeleton argument - see Lawtel and judgment of HHJ Morison on Appeal which was incidentally an ex parte preliminary hearing (not an APPEAL) establishing corruption as certain on the case; and (b) note the "application hearing" rather than an appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal stages - these I argue are "Access from Justice" as they remove the case from the correct path of Access TO Justice, ie the appeal process. You do not get leave to appeal from an application hearing, but as Woolf was implemented and made Lane v Esdail, ie blocking case law obsolete, there was no need for leave to appeal as access to justice is presumed by the Act per se. It is quite clear the case is essentially criminal and a perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office is occurring involving the judiciary for a reason - that Professor Richard Susskind is covering up by concealment (with the collusion and conspiracy of the Industrial Tribunal who overruled 9 pages of an 11 page pleading) the first disciplinary hearing re the 3 gross misconduct allegations for the benefit or sole benefit of Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, lawyers and one now a judge (AM), but because he himself took part evidentially in proceedings at an earlier date than his own disciplinary hearing and the issue is made out because allegation C was "not proven", thereby identifying a person who is Scottish and out of jurisdiction in England, ie himself. This then meant that all my evidence and witnesses were relevant as my case was prepared from the point of causation - all 11 pages of pleading as prepared by my solicitor Rolf Stein, ie Cathy James leaving the confidential memo in the public network directory and Susskind was actually perverting the course of justice on three grounds (a) misrepresenting the nature of my employment and contractual status and (b) averring the issue was a management decision rather than contractual and unlawful as it came about as a consequence of serious mismanagement and defamation and (c) concealing events and evidence for his own benefit - how did he become IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice when bringing false allegations concerning myself related to IT and also concerning two lawyers who had IT ornaments on their desks in an apparently computer specialist law firm - not. Measuring megabytes - yes I do know how to do this BUT did not do it - the system does it for you - you hover your mouse over the document or folder and it tells you automatically how much megabytes its used - this allegation was for gross misconduct against me and is impossible. Further the other two allegations relate to Anne Glazebrook and alleged representations which I know nothing about BUT those allegations are substantively impossible too and we are not doing Canon law here, ie Scots jurisdiction again. The confidential document was NOT confidential located in the public network directory. Saying Cathy James has a loud voice when she does have a loud voice is impossible too - but so far as I am aware I have not had a conversation with Anne Glazebrook about these allegations, there is also a high probability that I would not have had these conversations as I spoke to her 3 times in 6 months, and there are issues of timing - when did I allegedly have these conversations as there are only two possibilities (via deductive reasoning) (and it is admitted I had conversations on both these occasions with Catherine Johnson - so what!) as very narrow windows of opportunity that I cannot timeously account for in a week's activity as I specifically recall the week as my boss Brian Gegg was getting married, meaning I was busting a gut to get the work done by the Wednesday leaving me to work for my other boss Stuart Smith Thurs Friday and his workload was three Scott Schedules, ie A3 detailed documents: I did also have a conversation with a fee earner in her room on the day in question and did not disclose any details she told me to anyone, nor disclose to her any information I had - I am not known to be a gossip, drama queen, backstabbing little bitch - like Cathy. The allegations therefore remain denied until Anne Glazebrook can substantiate them preferrably in a witness statement rather than second hand knowledge via Siobhan Cross and Andrew Blunderfield who was Catherine Johnson's boss. I don't recall ever having a conversation with Andrew Blunderfield but Anne Glazebrook was never out of his room gossiping - but not to me - I was always TOO BUSY. Further even if it was proved that I did have the conversations - so what - its not gross misconduct. It is gross misconduct by Cathy James however. So the criminal issues are (a) perversion of the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office [noticeably the Government is currently engaged in a consultation process concerning the misconduct in public office offence - I have put in a substantive Late Response to this consultation and will probably do so again if it goes to the Lords - should be available for freedom of information requests as I did state it could be made public!

The Affidavit by myself and letter re case marshalling and witness statements of Catherine Johnson, John McDade, Chloe Miranda (who was also sacked on a previous occasion by Anne Molyneux using the transfer/sack methodology for having done nothing wrong but showed Cathy James up as "knowingly incompetent") for the Claimant and Mike Orton (HR) and Tony Bunch (Managing Partner) for Respondents are not available online at the moment as some pdf and tiff documents my hackers corrupted and some are not held electronically - that does not mean you cannot have the information, I will just have to scan or rescan it. Just ask if you need the info - it is implied that the recent hackers were not in a position to ask for the information or more to the point an abuse of power was occurring. There are two lever arch files of evidence in existence by me (and 40 man hour of information missing DELIBERATELY by Respondents)

You already have a post in November on this blog with documents under the heading organised crime and corruption - see index of content list on the right hand side of the blog - but I do have some information of relevance relating to the Law Society complaints which were corrupted and may have involved Kamlesh Bahl and her solicitor Jill Andrews ex-colleague at Masons to Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross and Professor Susskind and the failure of my case worker Jane Betts to process the complaints properly due to an alleged bullying allegation at the Law Society reported in "The Times" and which was subject to a news blackout. Apparently my complaints x 29 were flooded - but when they went to the Ombudsman there was no mention of flooded documents!

If you can check out the CPR Rules of Court - known as the procedural rules. Then check the CPR Rules against today's court rules. You might have some difficulty locating the word "equality" in there, impartiality appears to relate only to expert witnesses; fairness - nope article 6 of the Human Rights Act is not located in them either - so if you find you can't get justice then don't be surprised. You can find proportionality, expediency is there because believe it or not there is a fast track and multi track facility, and there is economy in costs and court fees - it does not actually cost too much to litigate if you do it yourself - and a court system should not be so difficult to use that the ordinary "reasonable man" in the street can't use it. Then there is mediation/ADR/IDS/Informal Justice - how not to use the system - makes a lot of sense not - why compromise your rights - if you actually believe you have any in our not-democracy-at-the-moment in the UK and European systems (I think you might need to check the Scottish and rest of Europe bearing in mind I was the only person arguing for the "competition model" in the Directive on Mediation at the Subsidiary principle via Arlene McCathy MEP! And I did not get the competition model through! the coercive regime model got in). For what its worth the judges should be inclusive in the issue of equality, fairness, impartiality and justice - if they are not how then are they supposed to be independent. Sir Richard Owen QC heard my last case in February 2014 he refused to deal with organised corruption as pleaded and evidence in the bundles before him - you have the information above at EAT Appeal, Skeleton, HHJ Morison judgment and Lawtel - what do you decide? Over the years the corruption and organised crime have been reported to Rotherhithe, Southwark, Polwarth, Bow, Manchester, Fettes, Leith, St Leonards, and laterly Inverness even via Facebook - the police will put me in a mental health hospital when I am not actually mentally ill rather than deal with the issues. This is quite a serious issue because the Police even if I was mentally ill should deal with organised corruption affecting mentally ill people - they should not be able to not deal with criminality on the premis of mentally ill health. But it is because I am not mentally ill that they appear to not being capable of processing organised crime and corruption - another round of Facebook maybe! I do consider I am under surveillance though and what a lovely life I have too : excellent music taste and the parties - family ones - are they on a fishing expedition or something - when it is handed to them on a plate. Well Susskind wants courtroom IT - he has probably snaffled how to do it for free already ...

"Happy" yet, Richard!

The Shenanigans continue ... S J Berwin & Others sometime soon aka known as the "Shit cases" (have located most of the documents now but there is a lot so will take some time to decide what to upload.

This is the Originating Application of the Claimant (me) in the Sex Discrimination case against S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, David Harrell and Keith Wood Check out the date - the Human Rights Act is enacted. Freedom of expression has never been argued but I do consider that you will find that using a word contained in the Oxford English Dictionary - even if it is "shit" does not necessarily make it a swear word. There are 4 dictionary meanings - two of which are relevant - contemptible person and nonsense. You have the performance figures on the November blog post. I will post some further documents but there are over 20 pleading documents on this case just at the ET, there are more on the EAT and CA so maybe I wont post all of them. Notice in the Masons case, I just sued the firm, this time I also named people on the writ - important evidentially as David Harrell and Ian Insley did not do witness statements or appear in court I believe claiming they were the firm. Also, an issue is that retrospective rules were being used to sack me but this will show up in later documents and evidence.

Notice of Appearance of the Respondents - note it is just a flat denial of everything - there are 500 pieces of evidence including the fact that I was given a fee earner code and charge out rate and also a secretary I am just going to schedule up the documents of the ET and EAT in the first S J Berwin & Co and others case - there are approx 40 documents which you can click on and read for yourself - they are collectively known as "the pleadings". You will also note the dates of documents - the Woolf Reforms are supposed to be implemented - so not multi-track or fast-track then. Jurisprudentially a lot of these procedural documents are absolutely not necessary to the progression of the case to substantive trial - therefor if a "virtual court" in the future were to be seen to be reasonable in the pursuit of justice, a virtual court process could easily simplify the procedural rules, prevent the procedural nonsense and also ensure automatic contempt of court orders are given where there is non or minimal compliance - potentially as fines, any money raised could go to the Legal Aid budget or Pro Bono or Citizen Advice Bureau's court service. My virtual court is documents scanned as .tiff or .pdf or .word. I am using google cloud and it has a useful feature to allow editing or not to allow editing of documents - I have switched editing off. The system is then logged onto my google blogger and there is a small bit of code which you can edit to let people know what the document is rather than just leave it as code - its not difficult. As litigation is public domain, there is no reason why the whole case - pleading and evidence cannot be uploaded as any court case should be subject to freedom of information requests. As for Data Protection - maybe folks should be a lot nice to their staff or each other to prevent causative issues in the first place - I did not deserve to be treated in this manner by this firm or my previous employer - that the courts have promulgated the issues and the police failed to act when there is a duty to act and objectively not subjectively, as well as other ancillary agencies to law, is why you can read my documents. I have been defamed by two dismissals and I have experienced serious mismanagement - both these items need to be incorporated into employment law, ie unfair, wrongful, constructive and defamatory dismissal. Whistleblowing is not sufficient herein these cases and a litigation process is jurisprudentially meant to be and inherent within its essence a whistleblowing mechanism. Incorporating the Swiss criminal mismanagement construct as see in the Fifa example could also usefully be brought into UK law. The courts do not want flood gates, ambulance chasing and class actions if they can help it, they don't want a need for increased litigation, yet they fail to appreciate that mediation compromises peoples rights, rights which set standards in society when upheld. Well the standards are non-existent in my three litigated cases and now you can see why. There will always be disputes some of which are fundamentally necessary to society as Justice and as democracy and the ability for people to be equal. I am not experiencing "inequality" by litigating, I am experiencing "unequal": I have played a fair game throughout and that should be obvious to you. The Law Society is not regulating effectively or at all - but they will do so as a consequence of this blog. So it will be interesting to see the outcome as they have not as yet asked me for the paperwork, but then maybe Respondents or others will be supplying the same. Nor have I been told of any process that I am required to participate in - so maybe I dont. I have also now liaised with my MP, he has clarified that my research area and request of my previous MP is something for my MEP to deal. I am still requiring Parliamentary Sovereignty and an Appeal - you don't get to this stage lightly and I have been litigating 3 cases for 22 years including lobbying my research area - so perhaps substantive "virtual courts" are now necessary so that the light of day can shine on abuse and nonsense and the need to protect vulnerable people as a 21st Century court system - it is not sufficient to electronically be able to download court procedural documents, fill in the blanks, it is necessary for the documents to be substantive and to be seen - in that regard justice is done when she is seen to be done which is supposed to be a universal norm. We have 18th century systems being upgraded to 18th century systems with a 21st century hook - but they are not adequate or sufficient. Some people want to prevent litigation or arbitration I don't - it is healthy for a society to have disputes and there will always be disputes - it is how you deal with them that is important: I say, in two ways - those cases that reiterate the rule of law - they should be abundent and processed a bit like insurance claims and loss adjusters. If this then this - law is this. Then there are cases that "challenge" what the law is - these are the MOST necessary to democracy, justice is therefore the ability to reason at the highest minds and ability in law to promulgate society especially as statute can go out of date - sometimes to the 18th century or earlier and common law needs to be brought up to date in which case codification exercises are necessary. Also our laws determine who we are: we should not be over-regulated and our criminal law should not be criminalising people to the detriment of other public services. I am lobbying the misconduct in public office offence at the moment and put in a late response. I reasonably do not consider this offence should be a prisonable offence, but I do reasonably consider that this offence should be a fine with some community payback and asset stripped for unjust enrichment at the expense of someone under the Proceeds of Crime Act but that the fine should be the equivalent of going to prison. So as far as I am aware it costs £30,000 in Scotland or £45,000 in England to send someone to prison for a year. Currently the penalty for misconduct in public office is up to 18 years in prison depending on sentencing and severity of issues. A fine could reasonably be millions - this would have an automatic deterrent effect, the money raised could go to for instance Legal Aid Fund, Pro Bono and Citizens Advice Bureau. I rather suspect that the focus on this offence by way of consultation is to enable Tony Blair to evade the consequences of the Iraq War or for Professor Susskind and a few judges to evade being held accountable. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Consultation - doctrines of equity - first in time prevails; in the interests of justice - I asked for this offence to be considered by the Police and in legal documentation in the late 1990's - is the outcome of the consultation going to be retrospective.

Review of Facts Letter 1999-09-02
Review Decision 1999-09-13
Request for Further and Better Particulars 1999-09-20
Court Corres Order for Directions 1999-09-26
Appeal 1999-09-29
Respondents response to Notice of Appeal 2000-03-22
Applicant's Final Submissions 2000-03-27
Amended Order and Order Miss Selio 2000-04-10
Respondents letter to Appeal 2000-04-18
Response to Respondents letter of appeal 2000-04-28
Notice of Appeal hearing for Respondents 2000-05-15
Order of Mr Justice Lindsay 2000-07-26
Employment Appeal Tribunal to Applicant Prelimiinary hearing 2000-09-26
Manuscript Note of Hearing before Judge Sigsworth 2001-03-16
Answers to Further and Better Particulars 2001-03-28
Schedule of Documents 2001-04-03
Notice of Hearing 2001-04-06
Hearing update Further and Better Particulars 2001-06-27
Letter re Notice of Appearance 2001-07-23
Order to attend Khalid Nasir 2001-07-24
Witness Statement Ffion Griffiths for Respondents 2001-07-24
Witness Statement Julian Critchlow for Respondents 2001-07-30
Notification of time and date of resumed hearing 2001-08-03
Notification of Change of Solicitor 2001-08-06
Witness Statement Keith Wood for Respondents 2001-09-11
? 2001-11-05
Burden of Proof 2001-11-05
Submission by Respondents indirect discrimination burden 2001-11-05
Comments on Respondents Burden of Proof 2001-11-12
Respondents Reply to Submissions 2001-11-13
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 1-5 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 6-10 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 11-16 2002-07-30
Decision of Judge Charles Ryan pages 17-22 2002-07-30
Review of Facts 2002-08-10
Decision on Application for Review 2002-08-19
Submission on behalf of Respondents by Counsel Tim Pullen undated
Masons Schedule of Documents undated (presumed July 1997) I cannot locate my witness statement nor that of Nicholas Carnell implying that since 2009 I have been hacked as these documents should be held electronically by me as above. Will load more documents next week. Have a riveting read and if you need to see evidence, where I can, I will oblige.
Schedule of Documents 2001-04-03
Schedule of Abstracted Documents 2001-04-03
Burden of Proof 2001-11-05
Submissions by Respondents 2001-11-05
Notice of Appeal 2002-08-13
Decision on Appeal for Review of Facts 2002-08-19
Appeal of Decision of Charles Ryan 2002-09-09
Order 2005-05-10
Particulars of Claim 2005-11-15
Skeleton Argument 2005-03-26
Order 2005-05-10
Claimants Supplemental Skeleton 2005-09-23
Defendants' Supplemental Skeleton 2005-09-23
Claimant's Second Supplemental Skeleton
Order 2006-07-28
Application to Lift Stay 2007-11-26

There is still more documents to be uploaded, do you think all of these documents are necessary? Also substantively they show every conceivable abuse Respondents' solicitors and Counsel could come up with. Noticeably they are not bringing a case against me hence the issue is that this sex discrimination case is one sided because for some unknown reason they think they can avoid or evade the choice of male comparator and the judiciary are acquiesent in this. It is solely for the Claimant to determine the male comparator and for respondents to delivery evidence showing a comparison. You cannot see the evidence (not yet anyway and there are 500 items discovered by me and about less than 20 pages discovered by them - but they did discover indirect information - the performance figures (which you can see on the November blog post if you look). Do you think the judge really needed so many documents detailing the case - this is a complete abuse of process especially when it is apparent the Respondents had no case at all. Elie Zekaria is the male comparator and it is obvious or should have been. Respondents' did not put forward any suggestion that he was not the male comparator other than complete denial. Technically, you should not be able to have a one sided sex discrimination - the judge is therefore NOT INDEPENDENT and moreover is NOT in control of the court. If you check out any documents take a look at APPEAL OF DECISION CHARLES RYAN 2002-09-09 and the procedural issues: also check out my Skeleton Argument dated 2003-03-26 establishing that the whole case is about procedural abuse and the judge is in on it. There then follows a significant delay in the case to 2012 - documents to follow - if you think this is bad enough - it gets worse!

These believe it or not are the WOOLF REFORMS to the English & Welsh legal system. Check out Scotland and Europe jurisdictions for yourselves as Woolf was implemented as the Directive on Mediation on the Subsidiary Principle and if Woolf screwed up the judicial system as averred, then the Directive made it law to do so. The lemmings jumped over the cliff ... If it happened to me, and I have an academic bent, then it has happened to others and is likely to be continuing and ongoing. I have asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty and a public inquiry ... watch this space.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home