300 th Post - to recapitulate
I have been sacked twice with devastating effects:
Because Cathy James was "knowingly" incompetent and left a confidential memo in the public network directory [because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - I did], because she has a loud voice which I am supposed to have represented to Anne Glazebrook and it is denied as I have no memory of it and allegations were brought 40 days out of sequence. I am also alleged to have measured megabytes which I did not do, my colleague Catherine Johnson was so doing because she wanted to show the workload was unevenly distributed in the department and a certain Cathy James was not pulling her weight.
Professor Richard Susskind mismanaged the whole debacle and sacked me, someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong - and which he establishes himself in proceedings at an early date by claiming issues were "unproven" which is a Scottish jurisdiction legality only and issues are based in England. Both myself and Catherine Johnson were sacked because Professor Richard Susskind did not take the hard decisions necessary for gross bullying by employers as well as issues of favoritism. Basically Professor Richard Susskind is not a manager and is involved in serious mismanagement.
I sued, only to experience organised crime and corruption. Professor Susskind did not disclose to the court his 40 man hours of investigation he alleges he did - he did not take the oath. As such he either perjured himself or did perversion of the course of justice. He either did not do a 40 man hour investigation as represented to the judge or he did and failed to disclose it deliberately. But it should have been obvious to the judge that you dont sack someone because someone else has a loud voice! which in any event she does and their witness Louise Fell sat furthest away and represented as much in papers before the court. But the Judge Chairperson De Saxe chose to override 9 pages out of 11 pages of pleading and refused to hear the case. It had been thought that Professor Susskind was covering for Ms Anne Molyneux who became a Judge on the High Court bench, but it is now known by the words "not proven" he was covering for himself. By sacking me he hoped to cover up the previous mismanaging activities of Ms Molyneux and Ms Cross and himself in the earlier proceedings which show that Ms Molyneux is not a fit and proper person to be a judge - how did she get past vetting?
The legal issue is called METALIPSIS - the reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause. Where you move away from initial causation of the Cathy James debacle and effect a new cause by transfering away ie effect so as to cause further disruption and reason to sack. Professor Susskind was attempting to transfer me to the float team by a unilateral not bilateral decision and I was sacked for refusing to obey an order of the company, which order was unlawful under contract. ie you use the effect of an earlier outcome as a new cause to sack. There was therefore an apparent cover up of the earlier proceedings in which Cathy James is causation.
See Louise Christian's of Christian Fisher, lawyers letter to the firm - it if was obvious to her it should have been obvious to Professor Richard Susskind which means there is some deliberacy to his activities - not nice then.
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)
My second dismissal was for saying my boss Julian Critchlow was shit amongst other things. And he was up to nonsense and was contemptible as a manager. The firm focused on the word shit and nothing else and brought in retrospective rules. It became clear my employment was not above board, I experienced sex discrimination, professional negligence, breach of contract and personal injury. I even saved Julian Critchlow's secretary from getting the sack as he was that much of a not nice person. Again the issue is largely mismanagement which is obvious in pleadings. I reacted badly to a memo stating my boss was a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory - as he had not given me any work in 2 1/2 years and had no clients that I was aware of this was a fabrication. It is my human right to use a word contained in the English dictionary. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I meant what I said and was being honest. I was given a reference which says I am honest with integrity - so why was I sacked = defamation by dismissal.
I sued twice and was given the almighty run around by the courts with Sir Robert Owen QC refusing to deal with organised crime and corruption at all. Subsequently, I could have appealed but having gone through the system three times, ie the Woolf Reforms system, there appeared to be no point so I wrote to the Lord Chancellor Gove refusing to use the system until Woolf is overhauled. I also asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Running alongside this has been the antics of Mr Michael Ford now QC and I appear to have been abused / tortured, albeit I did call him a coward for failing to turn up as a witness concerning case 1 above. I do wonder what's next as a MO is developed as a stalker. Anyway, he must have a reason so lets have it.
For what its worth:
I lost my job as a Legal Secretary
I lost my job as a fee earner paralegal
My law degree is damaged by dismissals albeit I scrapped a 2:2 but I am obviously not a 2:2 hence this blog
I have not been able to progress my career in law
I lost a flat in Edinburgh because I could not get work and agencies would not take me on as I had been sacked twice and I did not receive independent advice
I have been made out to be mentally ill when this is disputed or at all
I do not have a relationship with someone I love nor a family
I have endured 23 years of organised crime and corruption since 1993 by the courts and respondents' solicitors
I have not had paid employment for 17 years but do volunteering
My pension is affected by no paid employment
The police will not deal with issues as they arise
All because Cathy James left a confidential memo in the public network directory and her bosses were bullish. I did not care that Cathy James had a loud voice, I was concerned at her level of incompetence.
Lastly, my dissertation was on the Woolf Reforms which I was rightly concerned about. My court cases x 3 show the methodology of how they operate such that there is a real need to overhaul the Woolf Reforms. My blog is street justice. The Wool Reforms coupled with Professor Susskind's activities amount to an abuse of power and he is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. He needs to be given the boot especially as my court papers establish he has suspicious credentials as an IT specialist. What I did not know until recently is that Professor Susskind is Jewish so also Lord Woolf. My dissertation and my knowledge via S J Berwin & Co establishes a jewish plot within the English judiciary, ie an enemy within. I have seen other writings that the judicial system is being destroyed in England & Wales.
So whilst I have had 23 years of disruption to my life, I have gathered the proof that that disruption is deliberate and the methodology and who is doing it and why.
Also I was proferred 10% of my actual and forecast losses which I turned down via a mediation. Who, in their right mind, would accept 10% of actual losses. The whole process was a waste of £1000 and was a scam to only benefit the employer. However, that the judge on the case did not find 10% of damages is actually quite serious as employers were admitting liability via mediation. Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with organised crime and corruption on my case when put to him, thereby refusing to deal with half the case. How did I get a right to a fair trial? Hence my request to my MP for Parliamentary Sovereignty.
This is my 300th blog post - I don't know if you can do a 301 but please read my blog and if you can kick some ass along Whitehall if you're in a position to do so. My cases show there also needs to be an umbrella Act for mismanagement covering discrimination as a criminal offence as well as a new category for dismissal cases - defamation by dismissal - in the workforce as I did not sign my contract of employment to experience so much abuse by my employers, their lawyers and the judiciary. The Woolf reforms need to be admitted as a failure hence the need for parliamentary sovereignty concerning my 3 cases. Noticeably my career on doing an SNC Legal Secretarial certificate all doors were open to me and I gained access to the top flight of law firms in the UK including the top law firm in Scotland. But on starting my LLB degree in 1993 I have known nothing but abuse with little opportunity and apparently no doors open to me.
On a slightly more tenuous issue Well done Mr Donald Trump on being elected to the post of President. I concur that NATO needs to be revisisted concerning "collective security" and the preponderance of power in relation to the "perception of threat". You should only kick in when there is an "actual" threat and I note that Bill Clinton changed the way NATO operated when he was in power. As such, for the last 25 years, since my exam essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993 I have perceived a threat which I subsequently found out when doing my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in 1997 was sourcing from America via the Jewish community (Shapiro/Clinton). That perception of threat sourced from the USA undermined the rule of law, is a scam, and has lowered standards around the globe and my court cases are an example of how serious the lowering of standards have been via Woolf Reforms. We did in the UK, get to savage via the Midstaffs and Francis Report. Where we are headed is not certain but something has to give or be corrected globally. Hopefully revisiting NATO, even scrapping it in favour of a Genome project and uniting the disparate of the world, would perhaps be an improvement, ie removing the perception of threat from my perspective anyway.
So please Mr President, remove Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR/Informal Dispute Settlement -- IDS/informal justice or mediation sometimes known as compromise agreements by outlawing them from the public and private domain or at the very least the public domain because by their very essence and nature the dispute is always removed to the private domain. Whenever you see ADR/IDS/informal justice or mediation you know that the parties are going to be gagged by a compromise agreement, ie there is going to be a cover up. You now know what is wrong with American society and how to make America Great Again.
Regards
Lesley
Because Cathy James was "knowingly" incompetent and left a confidential memo in the public network directory [because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - I did], because she has a loud voice which I am supposed to have represented to Anne Glazebrook and it is denied as I have no memory of it and allegations were brought 40 days out of sequence. I am also alleged to have measured megabytes which I did not do, my colleague Catherine Johnson was so doing because she wanted to show the workload was unevenly distributed in the department and a certain Cathy James was not pulling her weight.
Professor Richard Susskind mismanaged the whole debacle and sacked me, someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong - and which he establishes himself in proceedings at an early date by claiming issues were "unproven" which is a Scottish jurisdiction legality only and issues are based in England. Both myself and Catherine Johnson were sacked because Professor Richard Susskind did not take the hard decisions necessary for gross bullying by employers as well as issues of favoritism. Basically Professor Richard Susskind is not a manager and is involved in serious mismanagement.
I sued, only to experience organised crime and corruption. Professor Susskind did not disclose to the court his 40 man hours of investigation he alleges he did - he did not take the oath. As such he either perjured himself or did perversion of the course of justice. He either did not do a 40 man hour investigation as represented to the judge or he did and failed to disclose it deliberately. But it should have been obvious to the judge that you dont sack someone because someone else has a loud voice! which in any event she does and their witness Louise Fell sat furthest away and represented as much in papers before the court. But the Judge Chairperson De Saxe chose to override 9 pages out of 11 pages of pleading and refused to hear the case. It had been thought that Professor Susskind was covering for Ms Anne Molyneux who became a Judge on the High Court bench, but it is now known by the words "not proven" he was covering for himself. By sacking me he hoped to cover up the previous mismanaging activities of Ms Molyneux and Ms Cross and himself in the earlier proceedings which show that Ms Molyneux is not a fit and proper person to be a judge - how did she get past vetting?
The legal issue is called METALIPSIS - the reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause. Where you move away from initial causation of the Cathy James debacle and effect a new cause by transfering away ie effect so as to cause further disruption and reason to sack. Professor Susskind was attempting to transfer me to the float team by a unilateral not bilateral decision and I was sacked for refusing to obey an order of the company, which order was unlawful under contract. ie you use the effect of an earlier outcome as a new cause to sack. There was therefore an apparent cover up of the earlier proceedings in which Cathy James is causation.
See Louise Christian's of Christian Fisher, lawyers letter to the firm - it if was obvious to her it should have been obvious to Professor Richard Susskind which means there is some deliberacy to his activities - not nice then.
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)
My second dismissal was for saying my boss Julian Critchlow was shit amongst other things. And he was up to nonsense and was contemptible as a manager. The firm focused on the word shit and nothing else and brought in retrospective rules. It became clear my employment was not above board, I experienced sex discrimination, professional negligence, breach of contract and personal injury. I even saved Julian Critchlow's secretary from getting the sack as he was that much of a not nice person. Again the issue is largely mismanagement which is obvious in pleadings. I reacted badly to a memo stating my boss was a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory - as he had not given me any work in 2 1/2 years and had no clients that I was aware of this was a fabrication. It is my human right to use a word contained in the English dictionary. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I meant what I said and was being honest. I was given a reference which says I am honest with integrity - so why was I sacked = defamation by dismissal.
I sued twice and was given the almighty run around by the courts with Sir Robert Owen QC refusing to deal with organised crime and corruption at all. Subsequently, I could have appealed but having gone through the system three times, ie the Woolf Reforms system, there appeared to be no point so I wrote to the Lord Chancellor Gove refusing to use the system until Woolf is overhauled. I also asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Running alongside this has been the antics of Mr Michael Ford now QC and I appear to have been abused / tortured, albeit I did call him a coward for failing to turn up as a witness concerning case 1 above. I do wonder what's next as a MO is developed as a stalker. Anyway, he must have a reason so lets have it.
For what its worth:
I lost my job as a Legal Secretary
I lost my job as a fee earner paralegal
My law degree is damaged by dismissals albeit I scrapped a 2:2 but I am obviously not a 2:2 hence this blog
I have not been able to progress my career in law
I lost a flat in Edinburgh because I could not get work and agencies would not take me on as I had been sacked twice and I did not receive independent advice
I have been made out to be mentally ill when this is disputed or at all
I do not have a relationship with someone I love nor a family
I have endured 23 years of organised crime and corruption since 1993 by the courts and respondents' solicitors
I have not had paid employment for 17 years but do volunteering
My pension is affected by no paid employment
The police will not deal with issues as they arise
All because Cathy James left a confidential memo in the public network directory and her bosses were bullish. I did not care that Cathy James had a loud voice, I was concerned at her level of incompetence.
Lastly, my dissertation was on the Woolf Reforms which I was rightly concerned about. My court cases x 3 show the methodology of how they operate such that there is a real need to overhaul the Woolf Reforms. My blog is street justice. The Wool Reforms coupled with Professor Susskind's activities amount to an abuse of power and he is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. He needs to be given the boot especially as my court papers establish he has suspicious credentials as an IT specialist. What I did not know until recently is that Professor Susskind is Jewish so also Lord Woolf. My dissertation and my knowledge via S J Berwin & Co establishes a jewish plot within the English judiciary, ie an enemy within. I have seen other writings that the judicial system is being destroyed in England & Wales.
So whilst I have had 23 years of disruption to my life, I have gathered the proof that that disruption is deliberate and the methodology and who is doing it and why.
Also I was proferred 10% of my actual and forecast losses which I turned down via a mediation. Who, in their right mind, would accept 10% of actual losses. The whole process was a waste of £1000 and was a scam to only benefit the employer. However, that the judge on the case did not find 10% of damages is actually quite serious as employers were admitting liability via mediation. Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with organised crime and corruption on my case when put to him, thereby refusing to deal with half the case. How did I get a right to a fair trial? Hence my request to my MP for Parliamentary Sovereignty.
This is my 300th blog post - I don't know if you can do a 301 but please read my blog and if you can kick some ass along Whitehall if you're in a position to do so. My cases show there also needs to be an umbrella Act for mismanagement covering discrimination as a criminal offence as well as a new category for dismissal cases - defamation by dismissal - in the workforce as I did not sign my contract of employment to experience so much abuse by my employers, their lawyers and the judiciary. The Woolf reforms need to be admitted as a failure hence the need for parliamentary sovereignty concerning my 3 cases. Noticeably my career on doing an SNC Legal Secretarial certificate all doors were open to me and I gained access to the top flight of law firms in the UK including the top law firm in Scotland. But on starting my LLB degree in 1993 I have known nothing but abuse with little opportunity and apparently no doors open to me.
On a slightly more tenuous issue Well done Mr Donald Trump on being elected to the post of President. I concur that NATO needs to be revisisted concerning "collective security" and the preponderance of power in relation to the "perception of threat". You should only kick in when there is an "actual" threat and I note that Bill Clinton changed the way NATO operated when he was in power. As such, for the last 25 years, since my exam essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993 I have perceived a threat which I subsequently found out when doing my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in 1997 was sourcing from America via the Jewish community (Shapiro/Clinton). That perception of threat sourced from the USA undermined the rule of law, is a scam, and has lowered standards around the globe and my court cases are an example of how serious the lowering of standards have been via Woolf Reforms. We did in the UK, get to savage via the Midstaffs and Francis Report. Where we are headed is not certain but something has to give or be corrected globally. Hopefully revisiting NATO, even scrapping it in favour of a Genome project and uniting the disparate of the world, would perhaps be an improvement, ie removing the perception of threat from my perspective anyway.
So please Mr President, remove Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR/Informal Dispute Settlement -- IDS/informal justice or mediation sometimes known as compromise agreements by outlawing them from the public and private domain or at the very least the public domain because by their very essence and nature the dispute is always removed to the private domain. Whenever you see ADR/IDS/informal justice or mediation you know that the parties are going to be gagged by a compromise agreement, ie there is going to be a cover up. You now know what is wrong with American society and how to make America Great Again.
Regards
Lesley
posted by Lesley McDade at 3:45 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home