Challenges or “Tricks of the Trade”
Tricks of the Trade
The tricks of lawyers and judges, who themselves, of course, are lawyers, are many and varied, but have probably not changed much over the years; perhaps more so since technology changes.
The main tricks litigants in person (LIP) come across are:-
1. From the lawyer of the opposing party:-
1.1 Taking advantage of LIP’s and their vulnerability;
1.2 Ignoring rules with regard to dealing with LIP’s;
1.3 Withholding information material to the case to which the LIP is entitled;
1.4 Misleading the courts by withholding case law, sections of Acts and rules;
1.5 Lying;
1.6 Being corrupt;
1.7 Acting as sociopaths;
1.8 Delivering/serving bundles and documentation either as you step into the court room or after the court hearing;
1.9 Making contact with the judiciary and court staff clandestinely to run the LIP down, mostly with imagined information derogatory to the LIP, to put the LIP at disadvantage with information the LIP is in no position to deny and/or correct;
1.10 Liaising with Listings to choose their own judge;
1.11 Having crucial contacts on the ‘inside’ to control the outcome;
1.12 Not co-operating with the LIP;
1.13 Treating the LIP in a derogatory and belittling manner;
2. From the judiciary:-
2.1 Provocation;
2.2 Waylaying;
2.3 Ignoring the law, case law et al;
2.4 Rudeness and intimidation;
2.5 Lying;
2.6 Not independent or impartial;
2.7 Conveniently forgetting why they are there and what their job is;
2.8 Being corrupt;
2.9 Acting as sociopaths.
![Why Everyone Is a Victim [Except Rich Criminals]](http://edm1297.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ocls.jpg?w=171&h=264 "Book by Evan Whitton")
Aug 26, 2010 @ 14:01:34
Yes, that about sums it up for the public, having experienced all of the tricks above.
My house was taken for no justifyable or legal reason, it was the result of a network of solicitors combining forces to perpetrate fraud and deception.
The Law Society’s involvement in resolving this matter to a just and satifactory conclusion for the victim, the consumer, the member of the public, via an “investigation” into the actions of those involved, is misleading, as “investigation” in real terms stands for “challenge” the victim, there is not even the merest possibility of integrity involved in any of the systems and structors that the Law Society base their findings.
Having been involved with the Law Society for the best part of five years, they found that I had had an adaequate service…..so forced to go to the Ombudsman.2009… where I expected that they would find in favour of the Law Society’s investigation. This turned out to be true.
Despite evidence provided by my own investigation, which led me to convicted Solcitor John David Cort, sentenced on the 28th of May 2010 to 29 years for Murder and Fraud. Abused his position in 2008 in acting for a third party, in a unauthorised access to our mortgage account for the purpose of redeeming our mortgage for a third party, which was the concluding part of the fraud that began in 2005 with a former solicitor.
I have since met with two CID officers on the 9th of August 2010 attached to the murder team that convicted John David Cort, who came from Leicester to Derby to meet me.
They had no hesitation in concluding that we were, and are victims of crime since 2005. They also informed me that since JD Cort’s conviction it has opened up a network of corrupt solicitors involved in mortgage/property fraud/money laundering, and other scams, the investigation into this is massive.
What does this say say about the Law Society and the legal Ombudsman’s approval of the Law Society’s handling in what we are deceived into believing an “impartial investigation”.
The CID were somewhat surprised that I had not been given any information or options by the Law Society or the SRA in respect of the currant position regarding JD Cort. The CID did, however, provide me with information of a law firm in Matlock Derbys, appointed by the SRA to deal with the Compensation Fund. Some victims have already been compensated out of the various bank accounts held by JD Cort.
I rang them, only to be told that they are only dealing with the ex-clients of JD Cort, and as I was not a client of JD Cort then I do not qualify for the compensation fund. Nonetheless I am a victim, so where do I stand in receiving compensation? I am at present dealing direct with the SRA.
I have stated this is not a complaint. This is a report of Fraud, where I have provided documentary confirmation that Fraud has been committed, which led to the theft of my property, any attmept by the SRA to excuse or dismiss the offences commited by JD Cort will lead me to conclude as with the Law Society, a flagrant avoidance to apply the appropriate process and procedures applicable to the seriousness of the offences committed. This would also be a deliberate waste of my time, and a disservice to the victim, the consumer, the member of the public.
I have asked what they are prepared to do to bring this matter to a just and satisfactory conclusion. I will await their response. But I have informed them that I will not be in a position to respond to their response whch I am told will be with me in two weeks, but I will be away, and I have informed them of this, so I hope they respect this time scale.
Meanwhile I was told by the CID officers on the 9th of August 2010, as they are attached to the murder team, they cannot deal with my particular crime of Fraud and would therefore pass my details to the Fraud Unit in Yorkshire which has been specifically set up to deal with the ongoing actions and investigations into the network of corrupt solicitors.
Kind regards to all
Norma
Victims Unite! Empowering Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression |
Nov 21, 2010 @ 09:53:00
Aug 18, 2011 @ 20:46:11
“Tricks of the Trade” from lawyers “defending” the litigant:-
1. Advising an innocent litigant to plead guilty when they are not, yet others in the case are.
2. Advising an innocent litigant to apologise even though they haven’t committed any crime.
3. Advising an innocent litigant to avoid charges against a criminal, thus pardoning crimes.
Aug 18, 2011 @ 21:25:05
Very sad, and very true, Debra!!!
In my current world view, it distinctly seems that
1. We are all Victims (except rich Criminals) – which is the title of a book by an Australian author
2. it seems more likely for criminals to “win” than for the innocent…
Hence we need to unite, don’t we!?…
Aug 23, 2011 @ 16:04:23
It’s very difficult to determine the rights and wrongs of this case, as we are naturally enough only reading one side of the story here. However, perhaps we need to remember that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done and it has certainly not been seen to be done here.
The more I read these tales of woe on this and other sites, the more I realise that once you become embroiled in the legal system in this country, you really do have to be a canny operator if you are to succeed, especially if you are trying to fight the system as well as defend yourself.
The legal system in this country is really in a mess and seems weighted against the wronged rather than the wrongdoer. I have, in the past, taken debtors to court and received judgement against them, but what good has it done me? I have never received the money I was due and if I wish to chase the debtor, I have to spend more and more money to do so. The system is pathetic!
Aug 23, 2011 @ 16:16:54
Pathetic, indeed, or as the book title: “Our Corrupt Legal System – where we are all victims, except rich criminals”…
We, the litigants, are only “fodder” for the mill to keep grinding…
With deep sighs, THANKS for your comments!
Aug 23, 2011 @ 16:25:41
I’m not sure I like the idea of being ‘fodder’ but perhaps it is an inevitability???
I found a link the other day to a OFT report about insolvency proceedings against Companies. It seems that the major creditors (almost always the banks) will appoint the receivers and agree their terms of remuneration with them. The banks are preferred creditors, so they will always get their money before anyone else – consequently, the charges made by the administrators is not of major concern to them. Interestingly enough, if I, as a small creditor, wished to challenge hourly rates of £400 (and even £150 for the office junior) I can apply to a court for a review. However, I must pay my own costs for this action, whereas (win or lose) the administrator receives their costs from the remaining assets of the company they are winding up.
When I first read this I honestly thought I had mis-read ….. but no such luck!