TO DO list means TO CLEAN list in the Judiciary and Legal Profession

The hurdles to bringing down the Berlin Wall of fraud. Re: solicitors, barristers, judges and courts:

  1. Stop opposing Barristers and Judges from the same chambers acting on cases.
  2. Stop solicitors choosing their Judges.
  3. Stop solicitors from accessing court files, without clients presence and written authorization.
  4. Stop insider dealing through secret memos between lawyers and members of the Judiciary.
  5. Stop judges and court staff tampering with tapes and transcripts, give the public / victims a copy of the tapes for a fixed price and let them have the option of transcribing the tapes.
  6. Stop the casual condoning of the breach of Court Rules by members of the Judiciary.
  7. Stop manipulative legal ‘professionals’ from conducting unfair ex parte hearings.
  8. Stop the Bar Standards Board (BSB) from dominating their “Complaints Committee” with BSB members on a ratio of 3:1 to lay members (grossly unfair bias).
  9. Stop the Bar Council from running an illegal MONOPOLY by forcing all their members (barristers and QCs) to take out their Prof. Indemnity insurance with ONE insurer of the Bar’s Choice ! (Bar Mutual Insurance Board) – this encourages corruption, manipulation, chicanery and illegal protection of their Master policy, as well as creating an unlawful price-fixing situation.
  10. Stop the Bar Council from withholding Minutes of meetings from the complainant, which are conducted by their so-called “Complaints Committee” which is totally biased.
  11. Insist that the Bar Council invites the complainant to attend all Complaints Committee hearings; Insist that the Bar Council runs a strictly INDEPENDENT Complaints Committee, with NO BSB members involved – needs to be impartial.
  12. Disallow QCs or barristers on the BSB Complaints Committee from being allowed to recuse themselves from questioning: this is a convenient cop-out.
  13. Curtail judges from being self-policing and from being accountable to no one!  Create a Public Committee that is democratically run to monitor Judges conduct.
  14. Cut out the unnatural and archaic adulation of Judges:  they are only human, after all.
  15. Ban all psychological warfare in the Courts esp. the High Court (e.g. elevated platforms for Judges to peer down at you etc).
  16. Ban the government from being allowed to select Judges, and make this a democratic election from the People, instead.
  17. Stamp out  the “Magic Circle” firms from being allowed to act ONLY for the Banks – reverse this rule to say they can only act for the Public!
  18. Cut out the ‘insider dealing’ where major financial institutions and banks are given free reign to completely stitch up the Legal Market to stack the odds in their favour and to their total advantage !
  19. Radically overhaul and change the ‘conflict’ rules run by the SRA.  Disallow conflicts of interest on Public Interest matters (Insolvencies etc) and impose hefty penalties for these outrageous practices.
  20. Cut out the widespread practice of CRONYISM in the Judicia, by issuing hefty fines where back-scratching, bribes and ‘favours’ are being used in cases (equivalent to ‘foul play’).
  21. Cut out play-acting and ingratiation- to -the-Judge games in the Court rooms, and impose fines for this kind of misconduct on the part of barristers: which wrongly focuses on the presentation and ‘favouritism’ instead of on the Case’s merits.
  22. Ban game-playing from solicitors who use technical and procedural errors or issues to deliberately and perversely derail highly important and meritorious cases, and preventing Justice or a hearing.
  23. Issue fines to Judges who refuse to examine evidence that is presented or put before them (which turns the Justice System in to little more than a lottery).
  24. Issue fines for legal ‘foul play’ from solicitors bending and manipulating the Rules and overriding by abusing the process and focusing on the ‘letter’ before the merits or spirit of the case.
  25. Make legal aid much more widely available to people in genuine need who are otherwise unable to access Justice.
  26. Do independently-run spot checks in the Courts to ensure that Judges are not accepting financial bribes or engaging in ‘foul play’ or cosy coteries with their entourages.
  27. Ban cocaine in the Court room, which many barristers use and resort to using so they give a better ‘performance’ in Court!
  28. Ensure that Litigants in Person are permitted and FUNDED publicly to access legal representatives of equal rank & status to the privately funded counsel of the financial bloated banks bringing possession hearings etc.
  29. Allow the Court’s  fee remission system to be extended to instructing counsel, where limited means can be demonstrated (Public funding).
  30. Strike off law firms who are found guilty of practicising FRAUD – e.g. DLA Piper:  Create a 3 strikes and they are shut down policy, or similar arrangement.
  31. Hugely increase the powers, funding and manpower capacity of the Financial Ombudsman Service, since most institutions and insurers these days toss every challenge ‘over their shoulder’ to the FOS, and hide behind him so they can pass the buck & thrown people into a 12 to 18 month queue or waiting list – by which time the original complaint dies a natural death of its own.
  32. With the FOS, increase the single case settlement ‘ceiling’ from £100,000 to £5 million.
  33. Do whatever is necessary to clean up and break up the cartels in the insurance Industry, the Banking Industry, the Insolvency Industry, and the Legal Services Industry.
  34. Stamp out private Court transcriber services like Merrill Legal Services from being allowed to extort huge charges for Public Interest information in transcripts ,and thus prevent access to Justice and critical information on cases in this way.  Make all Court transcripts available at COST PRICE only, i.e. NO profits allowed to private interloper parties like Merrill’s.
  35. Stamp out the practice of examining ‘Procedure’ or ‘behaviour’ over and above the actual complaint or case merits – this otherwise creates another let-out.
  36. Bring in a Judicial Review to make it illegal to run protectionist rackets within organisations – in particular, the widespread illegal practice of protecting the Master Policy of Insurance Underwriting companies like Lloyds, where ‘vested interests’ exist and take precedence over need or merits, open to escalating corruption.
  37. Bring in a Judicial Review to force the Police / Scotland Yard to investigate cases where PUblic sentiment requests this, and stamp out the practice of it being left to the whim of individuals who can be ‘bought off’.  Impose hefty fines for malpractice of this nature from the Police force and other “authorities’ who are supposedly there to uphold and serve Justice and Law & Order.
  38. Provide police protection and rewards to whistle-blowers who expose corporate, government or Judicial corruption.  This is the only realistic way we will ever be motivated to see a clean-up.
  39. Break up the oligarchies of the Banks controlling everyone and everything, including politicians, Judges, courts etc etc – it is the ultimate Fraud!

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Law Society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to TO DO list means TO CLEAN list in the Judiciary and Legal Profession

  1. Colin Peters says:

    I agree with many of the points that you make Sabine with just a couple of reservations, the main one being, who is going to introduce these proposals and then enforce them?

    As usual, and as I believe we all should, I venture my observances not from anything that I have read, but on what I have actually experienced in real life.

    The granting of Legal Aid Certificates should not be merely means tested but also vigourously credibility tested before issuing the certificates.
    After all, they are dishing out public money.
    In my own case, the deceptions that gained my opponents their legal aid certificates were all rejected/conceded at the court hearing 5 years later.
    The proof of some of these deceptions had been submitted to my opponents solicitors very early in the litigation but they refused to blow the whistle on their clients.
    Because of this, £32,000 of public monies were expended on their crooked client evadie a debt of just £6,173, and once this unjust and ridiculous situation had come about. I could not be allowed to win my case.

    On the subject of
    Any judge has to be seen to remain aloof and impartial in court dealings involving his/her peers such as expert witnesses, who make a lucrative and regular part of their living from attending courts as professional witnesses.
    In my case, the evidence of an expert witness was rejected in total, with ‘regret and no small measure of embarrassment’ by the judge, who then went on to excuse the surveyor, and so ensure that he got his share of the £32,000, by stating that he felt that the surveyor had been trying to give his clients ‘value for money’.
    In my case, seeking to aid and abet deception and pervert the course of justice was the judicial definition of giving ‘value for money’

    It should be mandatory that lawyers in court who are aware that their clients are giving evidence in conflict with their pleaded cases should be obliged to stand down
    rather than be a party to their clients deceptions and misleading the court.
    In civil cases especially, anyone committing the act of perjury in their giving of evidence must have the whole of their evidence rejected, or at least, viewed with extreme suspicion.
    I say this because, in my case, certain claims that my opponent had made to the court were conceded immediately before the giving of the judgement.

    Finally Sabine,


    In line with the Magna Carta, we must be judged in all our affairs by our own peers and not by those whose interests lie in maintaining an upper class ‘system’ that is lucrative to them, but tramples over people like ourselves.

    Once again, I urge all our readers to follow my example in getting on the end of Sabines contributions and responding with your observations based on your own experiences. Please let her see that her efforts are noted and appreciated and please don’t leave it all up to her. I stress that we need unity.

  2. Richard Colborne says:

    Brilliant Sabine,
    Much needed, but how many of us could do it? …and members of the legal profession obviously wouldn’t want to. But aren’t you a mathematician by profession?

    I’d already thought of numbers 13 and 14, and that’s about it! Despite giving the subject quite a bit of thought over the years; I don’t even have the vocabulary.

    Ah, now number 23 is a good one. When I was before a magistrate in January 2009, concerning a accusation by the Metropolitan Police that I had jumped a red traffic light the previous January, I attempted to present quite a lot of evidence, but the magistrate deemed the evidence ‘inadmissible’ on the ground that it was too technical for me to deliver to the court as I was unqualified for such a task. A lack of formal qualification in that area hadn’t prevented me from collecting it, you will note!

    A lottery indeed it was, and the Met and their friends on LBBD, the winners!

    I received no direct response to two letters I wrote to the Met in January 2008 to inform them that the traffic lights were faulty, out of spec., etc, and nothing was done by way of a remedy until November of that year (and I note the fault condition still occasionally appears to this day). However; their beloved Gatso camera was turned off in July of that year. How could they justify doing this as it was there to save lives? Or so it states on the London Safety Camera Partnership website!

    Of course we all know the camera was not there to save lives it was there to rake in money from a set of chronically faulty and long out of spec traffic signals. At a guess (an educated one) a little over £2,000,000 per annum: an FoI request would prove this to be so. How many drivers lost their licences because of this scam and how much misery did that cause?

    One can understand why the magistrate had to find me guilty and dismissing the evidence was his way of doing it! You’re so right Sabine, in saying this must be stopped.

    I also read with interest what Colin says by way of comment and I did read your own story a while back Colin. As you note; “we must be judged in all our affairs by our own peers and not by those whose interests lie in maintaining an upper class ‘system’ that is lucrative to them”. So relevant to what happened to me and thousands of others. We all had to pay at least £60 and receive 3 points on our driving licenses (I paid £290), so a group of corrupt ‘upper class’ people can get richer.

  3. Colin Peters says:

    As I have maintained for some time, we should all get on the end of each others postings by citing our own experiences in support.
    In this way, patterns emerge which are often used as a means to progress injustice against us in the courts.
    Who knows? One day we might get the chance to say, not that these things CAN happen, but that they DO happen, and on a regular basis too, and look, here is the documented proof!
    Richard says, “One can understand why the magistrate had to find me guilty and dismissing the evidence was his way of doing it.”
    My own similar experience was of the judge forbidding my witness to read out a letter, handwritten by the defendant years earlier, which gave the lie to the claims that he was making to the court.
    Judges/magistrates should not be allowed to pick and choose what evidence they wish to hear.

    • Dear Colin and Richard

      Please note that I just stumbled into an email by Liz Watson whom I now acknowledge as the originator of the ideas – besides the first 6 which came from Johan Foenander. I would have liked to group the points but found that too difficult. Sorry not to have thought about that before.

      Ineed, Colin, the question is what to do about it? A petition targeted at the Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice may be the best option at this point.

      Background are the 1292 signatures to a href=””>STOP the OPPRESSION of the BRITISH PEOPLE and the remarkable comments.

      I’m now pleased with the response to WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation with similarly good comments.

      The next one could be WANTED: Fair, just and reasonable Access to Justice.

      Let’s see whether victims will unite around this issues!

      With thanks for your appreciation,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s