Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2017 as well as Happy Birthday to me 2018

I had a brilliant Christmas and partied at New Year too. I am going to the ballet,The Nutcracker, for my birthday treat at the weekend  My New Year Resolution is to upload case number 3 in the Royal Courts of Justice as I had promised to do sometime ago.

I was very disappointed with case No3 before Sir Robert Owen QC not least because he refused to deal with the corruption on the Masons case - at the EAT stage (refer elsewhere for data).  He said if I pursued this I would definitely loose my case against  S J Berwin and others.  So I said "in a raven's nest you should find a raven".  "in a judgment you should find a rule of law" and left it at that.

However, I did not win the SJB case either largely through in experience. My cross-examination was a disaster.  I had only just got started when the judge asked me whether I had finished yet.  So I said finished even although I had substantial cross examination yet to do.  I got the impression I was being ordered to finish.

Had I gone on to cross-examine properly, I would have broken the case down into its four component parts : sex discrimination both direct and indirect; breach of contract; professional negligence; personal injury.

1.  My cross-examation would have shown sex discrimination concerning the performance figures especially the page where Elie Zekaria was doing 131% and I was doing 49% with Solomon Wifa doing 79%.  Solomon was an agency worker, whereas Elie Zekaria and myself were employees hence Elie Zekaria was the male comparator.  The second litigation refused to accept Elie Zekaria as the male comparator and a complete nonsense occurred via the court.   

Bundle of Performance figures released by S J Berwin & Co which establish that there was sex discrimination and a workload problem in the department concerning me and that less favourable treatment was as a consequence of activities by management which was mismanagement and detrimental man management practices (Click here)

2. Indirect Sex Discrimination occurred in a meeting with Ian Insley and Julian Critchlow on 10 June 1996 wherein I was sidelined to administrative tasks and all other paralegals were assigned to paralegal assignments, such as Elie Zekaria under Zak Mulla, Solomon Wifa under David Stewart and Simon Williams and Chris Drayton to the first tranche of the Guiness Grandmet merger creating Diageo plc which I subsequently engaged with in Tranche 2.  My performance figures are demonstrative that there was a workload problem in the department and rather than treat me as a paralegal proper (perhaps because my contract was in repudiatory breach) I experienced less favourable treatment having to do archiving and a pilot library for which there was already existing personnel to do these activities.  As I had previously been a legal secretary from a group comprised mostly of women it was deemed that I should do administration tasks rather than paralegal tasks albeit I did get work from Nicholas Carnell who was bullish and unfit as a supervisor.

3.  The contract had been in repudiatory breach for 2 1/2 years until I whistleblew in an Employment Seminar which resulted in  a new contract on or about 18 May 1998.

4.  Most of the paperwork relating to Nick Carnell was professional negligence.

5.  And finally both our Consultants were agreed that I had developed paranoid schizophrenia during my time at SJB as a consequence of the Woolf Reforms.  Respondents' consultant was a professor of psychiatry and was in joint agreement with my own consultant.

The Official Solicitor was requested twice and on both occasions deemed herself unable to Act.  The first because I was not a patient and the second due to the funding cuts under the Woolf Reforms impacting on her department.  She could have tried the pro bono unit but did not do so and there was a distinct lack of empathy from her [Samson-Tandoh], ie she did not try at all to do an order of the court.

Needless to say the Judgment does not reflect any of the above in it yet it was clear from pleadings and evidence.  Sir Robert Owen QC's judgment appears to be one of fabrication but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it as you do not automatically receive a copy of the judgment from the Royal Courts of Justice.  I would say that justice was deliberately denied to me.

2007-12-27 Application Notice
2005-02-14 Defence
2005-03-26 Skeleton Argument
Skeleton Argument Court of Appeal
2005-03-20 Medical Report D
2005-05-10 Order
2005-07-05 Medical Report L
2005-08-10 Joint Medical Report D&L
2005-09-23 Claimant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-23 Defendant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-27 Order
2006-03-09 Claimant's Second Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2006-03-24 Order
2006-07-28 Order
2007-11-07 Application to lift the stay
2012-05-26 Application hearing
2012-07-17 Order
2013-04-10 Witness Statement LDM
2013-06-25 Originating application 2
2013-07-22 Response to Defendant's Request for Further Information
An attempt at conflict resolution was made with 10% of losses being proferred but not accepted.
2013-09-16 Consent Revised Order
2014-02-16 Skeleton Argument
2006-28-07 Order

These are all the documents I had in my possession up until trial.  There may however be further documents in the trial bundles [15 lever arch files] which were delivered up to the court on the day of trial.  I have not looked to see what the 15 lever arch files comprise.  My bundle was 1 lever arch file only.

As I  have suggested before there is a need to split litigated cases into two categories: those that reiterate what the law is and those that challenge the law.  The latter are the most important stages in society.  I would also respectfully suggest the Woolf Reforms be deemed a complete nonsense and failure as just a Jewish scam and that the courts be significantly overhauled such that a case cannot take more than 6 months as opposed to in my case 22 years in court on three litigations two of which took 10 years or more.

I am still waiting for parliamentary sovereignty and will contact my MP again.

Anyway have a lovely 2018.  I am more or less finished blogging for now as there is not much going on in society due to Brexit politically.  Remember this is meant to be a blog book albeit I may have to pay to get it published in some format and have an offer - but I have been told I should not pay to get published! Ah well.  As a blog book it was discovered that there is a jurisprudential secret in law concerning the opposites, so take note when reading as it is subtle in this blog book.

I also intend to find somewhere to archive my papers: it is not often that a litigant sues top 20 London law firms and one being Professor Richard Susskind OBE, IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice whilst also arguing academically against the Woolf Reforms as Lord Chief Justice - there must be some historical merit in the bundles of documents [15 lever arch files].