When Public Interest Solicitor Fights the Law Society and Justice Committee @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice #Brexit

This remarkable publication in the Public Interest comes in the spirit of Suzon Forscey-Moore RIP who examined UK law practices as an American lawyer. I also remember the video of one victim whose anger pushed him to damage the Law Society’s company sign, I think. I certainly remember him starting with “What would drive a law abiding citizen to…”

From Miss Anal Sheikh to

  1. Mr Barry Gardiner MP, Brent North,
  2. Vote Leave Campaign Committee Members[1],
  3. Supreme Court Justices

Dear Mr Nigel Farage and Mr Robert Neill MP

THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION INTO THE BREXIT CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS QUEEN ELIZABETH II AND TO THE HOUSE TO  IMPEACH  THE RT. HON THE LORD PHILLPS OF  MATRAVERS WORTH, THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (3RD OCTOBER 2005-30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 ) (1)   AND THE RT. HON. THE LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS, JUSTICE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT (2006 – SEPTEMBER 2013), LORD JUSTICE OF APPEAL AND MEMBER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL (2)    INTER ALIA, FOR THE THEFT OF THE TITLE TO 37-47 STOKE NEWINGTON ROAD LONDON  N16 8BJ, THE THEFT  OF THE  SHEIKH CHARGE  AND FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (‘THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD’)  

My name is Miss Anal Sheikh.  I am  a solicitor of some twenty years standing.   In the case of  Anal Sheikh v Law Society HC 2005 Ch ,   I became the first solicitor in  legal history to have succeeded in an application against the Law Society to set aside an intervention  into a solicitor’s practice under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974  (or what everyone mistakenly believed was an intervention under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974) .  I assert I am a still a solicitor. The UK Government in the case of  Anal Sheikh v UK Government  [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010) 51144/07  and  Ref 28863/11 agreed with me. The Law Society disagrees with me, disagrees  with Parliament and disagrees with the UK Government.

My conflict with the Law Society has given me a unique experience of the workings of  the Establishment; and the  true extent of the unfettered power and influence it wields  in the UK.

Attached are two documents which I have lodged in the Supreme Court, and which I believe will be of interest to Mr Farage as a Brexit supporter.

CL1, inter alia a request made to Lord Justice Briggs and to Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers to appear before Parliament to account for their involvement in the  Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud.

CL5, my Third Party Intervention  to the Supreme Court in the Brexit Case, which is made ex debito justiciae. An index of my submissions is at Page 8-9 of this letter and a flowchart showing the  link between cases is at Page 10.

Mr Neill MP is the Chair of the Justice Committee. He and the other Members of the Justice Committee have been sent the entirety of CL1 and CL3  together with documents in support.

This is copied to my own MP, Mr Barry Gardiner, who after raising the issue of whether judges can now do conveyancing from the Bench with the then Minister of Justice, Mr Kenneth Clarke MP in 2011, has for the past five years refused to acknowledge not only me, but the conveyancing client in question, who is  a 90 year old woman and my mother, as his constituents.

First, I show that in their judgment in R (on the application of Miller & Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales made a statement which they knew was false and misleading:

  • That legislation enacted by the Crown of both Houses of Parliament is Supreme.
  • Parliament can by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses.
  • There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen.

As they know very well, Parliament is not the sovereign law making body under the UK’s Constitution  –  in the UK, judges make the law :

  • Parliament  has enacted  about  40-50  statutory provisions which have been assimilated into the administrative process of conveyancing.
  • In the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, Lord Justice Briggs disapplied all 40-50 existing laws or broke the law or made up his own law, eschewing conveyancing practices which have evolved over the course of its 400 year history; 30-40 other judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, agree that what he did was lawful.
  • In the so called interventions of solicitors’ practices by the Law Society, which are no more than raids and burglaries of the law firms, the judiciary have disapplied the  Solicitors. Act 1974 for over 50 years .
  • In the Theft of  Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and  Half Acres of Land the judiciary have disapplied  the Legal Aid Act 1988.
  • In the case of Grace Mekarska, the judiciary have disapplied  the Protection of Eviction Act 1977.
  • In the case of   Tariq Rehman v The Bar Council, the judiciary have  disapplied the Legal Services Act 2007.

The second point I make is that

1)        if the Lord Chief Justice and a Lord Justice of Appeal could use their judicial function to steal the title to a development site from a conveyancing solicitor and her client (The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud)

2)        if a County Court Judge could steal an unencumbered title from a member of the public appearing in court in a small claims dispute, leaving her homeless and destitute, unable to obtain a remedy for over a quarter of a century (The Theft Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and  Half Acres of Land)

3)        if a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Henderson (who was also involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud), could steal an unencumbered title from single woman who, four years later,  is still sleeping  in the streets or  couch surfing (The case of Grace Mekarska)

4)        if over  50 judges  can commit a transparent insurance fraud protecting an insurance company in which they all have shares (The Bar Mutual Fraud), how can the public be certain that the judgment delivered by the  Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales was not governed by private  financial incentives or considerations, or that the Supreme Court judgment will not be similarly governed.

The problem is more pernicious than it would be if this were simple judicial bribery and corruption for personal gain.

In EC UN CORE I show that in the UK,  judgments are not made to do justice between  the parties, but are made with a political and financial agenda:

  • Solicitors’ firms have been closed down to deprive the public of access to justice  (Law Society cases)
  • Legal aid has been withdrawn to deprive the public of access to justice
  • Insurance companies are protected
  • Money which could be used for schools, hospitals, legal aid  and for other social welfare is wasted on sham or non existent hearings.  The cost of the application for registration in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud would have been about £25.00 (twenty five pounds) in a solicitor’s office. I have estimated the cost to the taxpayer of the 9 ‘hearings’ which took place in September and October 2007 to commit the fraud, was  £100,000.00. The total cost to the taxpayer of all 200 ‘hearings’ is about  £10m. The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud is only one fraud committed in the civil justice system.  Extrapolating from the above statistics,  the cost of all of the sham proceedings taken over a 10 year period is £100,108.45 billion.
  • The fact that development sites are targeted for theft may suggest that there is a policy of enlarging the renting market and reducing owner occupied properties.
  • Victims of property theft are converted from solvent, employed, wealthy individuals into unemployed, dispossessed, asset less people who are destined to be dependent on State benefits for the remainder of their lives.

On 16th November, I sent CL1 and CL3 to each Member of the Justice Committee, together with about 1,500 pages of evidence and legal arguments.  The material was sent at 7.11am.

Later on the same day, at 2.16pm , I received the following response from the Clerk to the Committee:

Dear Miss Sheikh

Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, has asked me to let you know that the Committee will be taking no action in response to your request.

Yours sincerely

Mr Neill had apparently prioritised the matter before all other Committee work  and (assuming he had started work at 10am) within about 4 hours, had read all 1500 pages, mastered all the relevant disciplines which, to name a few, would have included commercial conveyancing law and practice, development law and practice, company  law and practice, High Court civil litigation, criminal law and money laundering; and had concluded there was nothing for the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Briggs to answer.

My thesis in CL1 and CL5 is that the constitutional principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and judicial independence exist in the UK only in the realms of constitutional theory.

In reality there is no separation of powers between  the legislature and the judiciary in the UK.  Judges bring about the enacting of  laws which are specifically designed to make it easier for them to steal land and property from ordinary people,  while Parliament sits by and does nothing.

To prove or disprove my thesis, would Mr Neill please respond to the following questions:

1. Does he consider himself to be conflicted by the following facts and matters

He was  one of MPs  who condemned the  newspaper attacks on judges after the  Brexit ruling.  His publicly stated position is that

Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse.

He can see from my materials that judicial corruption permeates the entire judicial system from Magistrates Courts right up to the Privy Council.

About £1m worth of property is processed every minute at the Land Registry  and there is one property transaction every 9 seconds. There are hundreds of millions of transactions   transacted every year.

For so long the Fraudulent Instrument of 2nd, which was the vehicle  of theft  used in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, is capable of being made and is capable  being  treated by the Land Registry as a court order, these are the consequences:

  • 5 million  people will be displaced every day.  Assuming 25% can pay for hotel accommodation for a single night or have alternative accommodation  or can stay with friends,  4 million  people will have to sleep rough. The temperatures in April 2013 when I wrote a letter to Lord Judge,  were as low as  -5  degrees at night . How many people will have died  in the time it took for  Lord  Judge to have read my letter? How many people will have died  in the time it took for Lord Judge to  have opened the envelope?
  • In 10 days, the entire population of the UK will be made  homeless.
  • In 1 year, the entire asset base of UK will have disappeared.

Is he saying they should all lodge appeals?

2)    Mr Neill was a former member of the barristers chambers, 2 Bedford Row. At  EC UN CORE PAGE   678-679 I  show that barristers’ chambers which are involved in serious organised fraud are structured like criminal cells, affording their members complete immunity from claims, prosecutions and regulation. There appears to be a link between certain chambers and certain types of  economic frauds, which raises  the question of  whether chambers acquire monopolies to commit crime through the courts.  Does Mr Neill consider himself to be compromised by the fact that Mr Philip Newman, a current member of 2 Bedford Row, was involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and in the Bar Mutual Fraud ?

3)    The General Council of the Bar (and the Law Society of England and Wales) are at the heart of serious organised fraud in the UK and any barrister who challenges them does so at his professional and personal peril.  That is why no barrister dares speak out.  Is Mr Neill  too frightened to speak out?

The Justice Committee have been given the opportunity to dismantle the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud in its entirety. Mr Neill’s refusal to examine Lord Philips and Lord Justice Briggs means that it will continue unchecked.  Can it be said that Mr Neill is now also guilty of the  criminal offences[2] committed by Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs?

Finally, as a barrister,  Mr Neill should have no difficulty in seeing that the judiciary were instrumental in the  River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and in the   SRA Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. and if that is not apparent to him, there should be  real concern  about his Chairmanship of the Justice Committee,  not to mention the conduct of his barristerial work.

Yours sincerely

Anal Sheikh

[1] The Vote Leave Board

  1. Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Chairman)
  2. Martin Bellamy
  3. Harriet Bridgeman
  4. Peter Cruddas
  5. Nigel Dodds MP
  6. Suzanne Evans
  7. Lord Forsyth
  8. Alan Halsall
  9. Daniel Hodson
  10. Bernard Jenkin MP
  11. Christopher Montgomery
  12. Jon Moynihan
  13. Graham Stringer MP
  14. Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP
  15. Victoria Woodcock Committee
    • Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener)
    • Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive)
    • Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director)
    • Steve Baker MP
    • Ian Davidson
    • Nigel Dodds MP
    • Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP,
    • Rt Hon Frank Field MP
    • Lord Forsyth
    • Rt Hon Liam Fox MP
    • Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
    • Dan Hannan MEP
    • Boris Johnson MP
    • Paul Keetch
    • Lord Lawson
    • Andrea Leadsom MP
    • John Longworth
    • Lord Owen
    • Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
    • Dominic Raab MP
    • Graham Stringer MP
    • Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP
    • Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP.

[2] Land Registration Act 2002 

  • s123  (suppression of information )
  • s124 (improper alteration)

Law of Property Act 1925

  • s 183  (fraudulent concealment)

The Solicitor’s Act 1974

  • s22 (conveyancing other than by a solicitor)

Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 

  • s.1 (Corruption in public office)

Proceeds of Crime Act  2002 

  • s.327 ( Concealing criminal property )
  • s.328 ( Involvement in arrangements facilitating the  acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property)
  • s.329  (Acquisition, use or possession of criminal property   )
  • s.330  (Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering: regulated sector

Theft Act 1968) 1968

  • s.1  (Theft)
  • s 17, False Accounting (making false entry) (omission of material particular) (furnishing false information)
  • s.15 ( Obtaining property by deception )
  • s.20(2)   Procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception
  • s.22   Handling stolen goods (receiving, undertaking or assisting the retention etc.

Forgery and Counterfeiting   Act 1981

  • s.1  (Forgery)
  • s.2 (Copying false instrument with intent)
  • s.3 ( Using a false instrument)
  • s.4 (Using a copy of a false instrument)
  • s.5  (Custody or control of false instruments etc.)
  • s.175 ( Making, custody or control of counterfeiting materials etc.

The Fraud Act 2006 

  • s. 2 ( fraud by false representation )
  • s.3 ( failure to disclose information )
  • s 4 ( fraud by abuse of position )
  • s 6 ( possession of articles for fraud )
  • s 7 (making of articles used for fraud )

Common Law Offences

  • Conspiracy to defraud
  • Perverting the course of justice
  • Fabrication of evidence with a view to misleading a tribunal.
Advertisements

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 www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Activism, Common Law, Corruption, Home Repossessions, Judges, Law Society, McKenzie Friends, Ministry of Justice, UK Parliament, Victims of white collar crimes, White-Collar Criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to When Public Interest Solicitor Fights the Law Society and Justice Committee @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice #Brexit

  1. atta rehman says:

    Dear Sirs, Could anyone help me, to get contact details of Miss Ana Sheikh please. I have very strong cases against the SRA.

    Kind regards Atta Rehman

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  2. Lesley says:

    I would also love to sit down with Miss Ana Sheikh(group meetup) and learn from her as I am trying to help a friend who has a very similar problem.Anyone can help….please. Lesley

  3. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    IN REPLY TO Miss Ana Sheikh
    RE:- THE SUPREMACY OF THE PARLIAMENT AND COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES INDEPENDENCE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM:
    __________________________________________________________________________

    1, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request that any British or American Citizen Lawyer either living abroad or in the United Kingdom, whether He/She is a Member of the Law Society or the Bar Council, they don’t have the Legal Right to vote in any type of Elections in the Republic of Zambia, Republic of Malawi or Republic of Zimbabwe as Zambia from the 24th October 1964,
    Republic of Malawi from the 6th July 1964 or 6th July 1966 and Zimbabwe from 1979,

    2. There are many Persons what was than Nyasaland which is now Republic of Malawi,
    Northern Rhodesia which is now Republic of Zambia, Southern Rhodesia which is now Zimbabwe
    Since The Struggle for Zimbabwe as many persons had been killed, whilst there are many other persons who had donated Blood to persons who had been injured with the Bombs from Rhodesia which was sent to Zambia.

    3. The Law Society and the Bar Council Members have failed to Obey the Family Law Act 1986 Part 3 Declaration of Marital Status Section 55 (1) (d), 58 , 59, 60 and Repeal Schedules.

    4. There was a Judgment given in the House of Lords of Arnold Versus National West Minster Bank PLC [1991] Change of Law- There is no estoppel and there is No Res-judicata
    But I and many other Citizens are being denied Justice.

    5. Lord Phillips the Former Master of Rolls and than Lord Chief Justice and than The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Since He is a Human Being Person, as some of the Letters which have been sent to the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, they may or might not have come to his attention and consideration, whilst many Lawyers and Barristers are relying on Repealed Parliament Acts and Statutory Instruments repealed by the Minister of the Crown.
    This does result as Fraud upon the Court and Silent Fraud.

    6. The Judges are either immune under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, but they are not immune under Section 6 (2) (b) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, as on the 15th January 1986, I wasn’t living in the United Kingdom. The Senior Courts Act 1981 doesn’t apply to any Country outside the United Kingdom where an Injunction Order can’t be made under Section 29, 37 and 42 of the SCA 1981 Vexatious Litigant, when there is the High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 which has been amended in the Year 2014.

    7. Some of the Statutory Acts mentioned by Ana Sheikh, this have been repealed which has been continued under Different Act, whilst Section 75 and Schedule 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 does also apply.

    8, There is a House of Lords decision of Newbury District Council Versus Secretary of State for the Environment which was decided in the year 1980, That Judgment is in the Public Domain where any Member of the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Local Authorities in the United Kingdom any department should have the knowledge, but they do conceal and suppress evidence.
    There is an Offence of Official Misconduct in Public Office at Common Law,

    The Officers in the HM Attorney General Chambers, The Metropolitan Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, they do have the Knowledge but they don’t admit and carry out the Investigations.

    9. Section 11 (a) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and The European Communities Act 1972 Section 2 (1) had been argued at the High Court of Justice, whilst the House of Lords Judicial Office have not been informed.
    The Birmingham City Council they have also conceal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which does amount to Contempt of Court.

    10. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, they have to take account of the Internal Law of the Country, whilst they don’t take into consideration of New Statutory Acts and Statutory Instruments whilst it does take more than four or Five years before the Judgment is given in the Grand Chambers, whilst for Litigants in Person, this is being refused as inadmissible because of Bryan Versus The United Kingdom, when the Town and Country Planning [use classes] order 1972 had been repealed and replaced with another Use Classes Order.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

  4. This country and others are guilty of war crimes against babies and children who are being abused in care and used as lab monkeys by medical professionals and pharma companies. The supreme court are allowing this .

  5. I make no judgement on the rights or otherwise of Miss Anal Sheik’s claims which in my opinion from what little I know make a very strong case. Be warned the search brought up the Road Block Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who shall guard the guards?) these Guards block the access to any actions that the authority prevents alleged vexatious litigants from opening the doors to Justice. Would having a Independent Peoples Court or other system that allows litigants who may have just cause to make their case and get a fair hearing. A much more trusted access to Justice would be to do away with this Road Block of “Vexatious Litigants” and make a those persons that abuse or use the courts proceedings to harass or improper purpose face the criminal offence of “abuse of process”. As I understand it this would entitle the alleged “vexatious litigant” to use the facts of the civil case as a defence and a jury.. not the Judge decide… but is this what the Judiciary are trying to prevent? In the meantime no matter how strong this case I can see that it will be blocked until and if ever the law prevents judges opinion from Blocking claims. See
    .https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/vexatious-ex-solicitor-restrained-after-years-of-court-claims/5049846.article

  6. The fact is I have been searching for a solution to my own issue which is where a solicitor with findings against him in my case include offences (which are in fact breaches of statutory duty in administering our parent’s Estate (as sole executor he is his own client) ) Although the offences foun include “errors in the accounts – failure to pay funeral costs – and making a Part 8 Claim for their costs £9,063.36 inc vat, when he had already taken the money” – The Adjudicator failed to note that when the Solicitor made a claim for his costs in the Slough County Court, he breached the High Court Tomlin Order which had ordered “all further proceedings in this claim be stayed on the terms set out in the attached Schedule, and their be permission under this Order to apply for enforcement of these terms.”

    The terms of this order and other documents show the legal costs were assessed on the Standard basis and deducted (£4,035.50) with all other legal costs on the 2nd May 2003. The Solicitor having taken this money (legal aid) then created a false account for the same administration costs assessed on the Indemnity Basis £9.063.36 and deducted this on the 29th August 2003. (This means he had deducted £13,098.86 when he started the claim in the Slough County Court for the £9,063.36 which it was found he had already taken. This would have gained him a further £9,063.36 plus costs to add to the £13,098.86 already deducted making a total of more than £22,162.22. (It would be very interesting to look at the VAT account on these bills. and to see how these accounts would comply with the solicitors accounts rules)

    After It was proved to the Court that the payment had already been deducted, the Solicitor persuaded the judge to transfer the case to the Supreme Court Costs Office for Detailed Assessment. The Slough County Court made the Order it had no power to make.

    (39) JOYS 2.11 As well as having the power to act, the Department must use its power for a lawful purpose. Its action will be ultra vires and an abuse of power if: It uses the power to achieve a purpose which the power was not created to achieve.

    (40) JOYS 2.17; for the decision to be lawful, must not have exercised it’s discretion on the basis of irrelevant factors and must take into account factors which it had a duty to consider;- The HIGH COURT ORDER HC9800247 DATED 1st March 2002. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY KATE LOVE (DECEASED) had been finally settled. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to a case already adjudicated. Conclusion; the Order is void.;

    In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that: (i) a void act is void from the outset; and  (ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it.

    Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]. It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity, and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary

    I have taken out a Private Prosecution and where the CPR require an adult appears in Court charged with an indictable only crime should be sent forthwith to the Crown Court for trial. The CPS did not take over the prosecution to discontinue or continue the prosecution. The Defendant appeared in Court the Judge failed to follow CPR and statute and my claim was dismissed. on the grounds of VEXATIOUS PROCEDURE.

    The Court Order made in the Slough County Court in Claim 4SL03940 is void and abuse of process. All the Court Orders based on it are also void. As Lord Denning stated in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]. A void order is incurably void, and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing”

    This matter has evolved to show the solicitor has used vexatious proceedings to achieve numerous void orders and created a circus of proceedings and involved another firm of solicitors in a fraudulent claim in this matter that was dismissed only for the proceedings to be restarted. and further Orders in this case have been made. This matter was brought to the attention of the Legal Aid Commission (as it involved legal aid to “finally decide the matter with the Tomlin Order” but I am informed legal aid is not available to enforce the Order. The Senior Caseworker for legal aid advised me to forward the details to the Law Society and the LSO as they may wish to help me. – (I note the term “help me” rather than comply with their duty). I am in process of spelling out the detailed convoluted compendium of events.

  7. colinberry2 says:

    Justice or Just Us
    Joe Dowling’s exposé detailing the criminal routines of the Law Society in which runs a protection racket in England and Wales for fraudulent law firms. https://youtu.be/weicePC7R00

  8. Dai says:

    Has anyone asked for a copy of the bench memorandum which was before the High Court and where there may be several before the Supreme court?

    It is backroom lawyers who decide looking forma career in Europe and Human Rights laws.

    If you get it publish it – no secret decisions on such an important issue.

  9. Atta Rehman says:

    Urgent :
    Can anyone can help me , how to claim against the solicitors in a high court because I am very much disappointed and frustrated concerning their unconscious and improper decisions, because persistently they are ignoring serious issues since 2013 of both firm, and passing a ” Buck ” from one person to another.

  10. colinberry2 says:

    Well Atta Rehman we are all seem to be stuck in this situation no one seemed to know the answer, we have been waiting for 13 years, applying for an answer to everyone including the MPs, they just seem to ignore us as if we are dead or mad. I am just wondering if we are mad, if we kill someone will they let us of the hook?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s