There is no guarantee of legal assistance in the UK

I just read this most interesting article in The Lawyer online and it is titled “Real Pro Bono work is not a PR exercise“. Robert Dougans of course got a lot of publicity from his Osler casework, gave interviews outside the Royal Courts of Justice and of course his law firm BryanCave advertised his win against me on their website.

I had an e-mail from Robert Dougans not long ago in which he advised me on 13 June 2010 “It is perfectly in order for a lawyer (or law centre) to give assistance to any client they ethically can.” So far not one lawyer has offered to provide me with pro bono help and does that imply that I am not fit to be represented pro bono or is my case not ethical?

Robert Dougans then advised me to contact the Whitechapel Law Centre, to which I could only answer  they are the most recent legal advice centre that refused my any type of help by saying “Thank you for emailing Tower Hamlets Law Centre. Unfortunately defamation is not a matter that the centre provides advice in. We advise clients with problems such as housing, immigration, welfare benefits, employment & discrimination and education law.”I am then routinely referred to the illusive Community Legal Advise scheme who have strict guidelines that forbids them to give legal advice or referrals to anyone on a Defamation matter thanks to the Access to Justice Act. Interestingly this matter actually falls within the bracket of discrimination because I am discriminated against as I cannot get any legal help, but because this discrimination takes place within a Defamation case, no help can be given.

Of course doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath“, swearing that they’ll help anybody who needs medical help.  There is no such obligation for any lawyer. In fact an acquaintance e-mailed me recently saying, lawyers hate nothing more than work for free.

The argument the UK obviously now uses to excuse the fact that some people do not get any Legal Aid, is that they have the possibility to get pro bono advice or a fixed fee arrangement Yet there is no obligation on any lawyer to provide any such arrangement and in my experience, even to get pro bono advice one has to be recommended by a trained lawyer onto a pro bono scheme.

It is well-known by know that Simon Singh recommended Robert Dougans to David Osler, or the other way around, that doesn’t really matter in my view.

What so really annoys me is that I am being accused of wasting tax payer’s money in a case that has no merits, yet Mr Dougans has listed 3 hearings in a row. First is the application to throw out my expert evidence on Regulation 14 of the EC E-commerce regulations, a week after that we have the pre-trial review, which is supposed to be followed by an application to strike out my claim. Yet an experienced lawyer like Robert Dougans has not realised that it doesn’t make much sense to have a pre-trial review and a strike out application to follow, that it would make much more sense and be more cost saving to hear all applications together at the same time as the pre-trial review.

Of course the court can cash in considerable fees via the Benefits Agency when they list a case for trial. Not that I am trying to accuse the court of making money from my free legal ticket, but it is a fact that the court cashes in monies every time a hearing is scheduled in listing fees that the tax payer has to pay.  For a trial that would be £1,100 of fees.

I leave readers to make up their own mind about that, but cannot see any properly structured approach in this matter and favouritism that protects the bigger party, like major publishers that are involved in this matter.

How anybody is supposed to seek work when all those hearings are listed unnecessarily is of course another question.

Advertisements

The Guardian supports Human Rights abuse

By allowing Simon Singh to publish his ill-conceived article about me the Guardian newspaper supports a violation of my Human Rights. Quite astonishing from a paper that prides itself to support those who need it most, the underprivileged, the under classes and generally those who suffer.

I have written to The Guardian about the Simon Singh article as evidenced here but had no reply. Of course the Singh’s are currently enjoying a renaissance and very popular at the High Court but in the bit of the article where Simon Singh writes about me he forgets to mention  the latest victory for Osler was obtained in breach of my Human Rights and it is factually incorrect. Of course the only involvement I had with a Singh was a Mr Justice Rabinder Singh QC, who refused my application for Judicial Review over my inability to get any type of legal help in this country. I was also refused an application for an adjournment when papers were served onto me the weekend before the hearing, which was on a Monday morning, by the Legal Services Commission and I was told during the hearing that I should have read papers over the weekend. It was also ignored that I was in a weaker position against the Legal Services Commission having been unable to obtain any legal assistance.

In the meantime I had an e-mail from Mr Dougans who said that any lawyer had the right to give pro bono help as long as it is ethically sound. I have had forms for transfer to pro bono services that require a recommendation by a registered lawyer and without that pro bono firms would not accept a transfer. But the e-mail from Mr Dougans implies that my case or that I am not ethically acceptable. That is not very nice at all and I think he should not have made such a remark.

I have been refused help by Human Rights organisations, Citizens Advice Bureaus and Pro Bono Lawyers like Law Works years ago, yet Law works proudly helped David Osler. David Osler of course is already in a privileged position, he owns his home, has a well-paid job and lots of support from his left-wing friends and other Labour Party members, whilst I have lost my business and am just a single women without political back-up or help of any kind. I am also severely short sighted and have little money left now. David Osler was represented in that hearing that Simon Singh so proudly proclaims in the Guardian website by three lawyers, Robert Dougans, Jack of Kent and a QC would you believe, whilst I had no representation at all.

When I compiled case law yesterday I came across this judgement from Mr Justice Eady in the case of Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston Mr Justice Eady, who also presided over the Kaschke v Osler hearing found in paragraphs 21 – 23 of that Prince Radu judgment that the court has to observe the Equality of Arms principle and yet despite me not having any legal representation, Justice Eady did not allow me permission to appeal, he did however stay costs until my application for permission to appeal is decided. The Guardian did not pick up on that point, that I had no legal representation when Simon Singh boasts that his lawyer helped Osler win. It is incorrect that the case was dismissed quickly because it had been in the court for over 2 years and was sent for trial 3 times. But I am under the impression that the article of Simon Singh is a bit of an advertisement for Robert Dougans. So is the Guardian being used now to praise the Singhs and the Dougans?

The Guardian doesn’t even pick up on that point and allows Singh to indulge in his self-serving article. On Sunday I had been pestered by Robert Dougans all Sunday long, he sent me e-mails from 10 am in the morning till after 10pm at night, just to say in the very last e-mail that he is going to apply to have my case against Hilton to be thrown out. I was actually sitting  in church listening to the very good sermons Wendy Foote delivered on that day, when my phone started bleeping with Robert Dougans first e-mail of the day. Why take all Sunday long to work up to that simple fact, could he not write a short e-mail on a Monday morning to say that to me?  I think the style of  that man is very hard to cope with for somebody who  has no legal representation. I think in any case that Gray is obsessed with me.

It has been recognised that the use of legal doctrine can be an abuse of process itself. Because a judge would first identify their chosen and desired outcome, then manipulate the available legal materials to support that desired conclusion. Of course the UK and increasingly also the EU are desperate to escape liability over not giving legal assistance to cut costs. So the desired outcome is to declare that the case is without merit and be declared an abuse of process and whitewash the fact that no lawyer was given. This view is supported by the very respected Northwestern University School of Law, authors Emerson H. Tiller and Frank B Cross Volume 100, No 1.

but what cannot be ignored in the matter is the financial status of the parties, that it seems that the court prefers to give justice in the favour of those who have gotten the most money, very questionable attitude in the face of the principle that we are all the same under the law.

Well the state of Human Rights in the UK is generally very poor. May I just remind the world of the case of a young learning disabled man who was systematically tortured to death with knowledge of the police who refused to help him because he did not know that the police were the only people that a could help him.

I think I am being systematically tortured via the legal process. I simply asked for some respect, I want the right not to be associated with the Baader-Meinhof group and that gives people here in the UK the right to systematically and constantly insult me. I had sexual harassment on the Guido Fawkes blog, Mr Gray constantly accused me of being severely mentally ill. Indeed he constantly sent me e-mails accusing me of mental illness, till late into the night. He is a Labour Party councillor and housing officer. Yet even if I was mentally ill, is that a way to treat a mentally ill person? Please note that I am not mentally ill, that is official. I had personal insults thrown at me by David Osler and now have to spent extended hours each day in my room to prepare bundles for the many hearings the court has set up for me and indeed I am forced to go through because of ECHR rules, which say that I have to take the case as far as possible through the UK courts before I can complain to the ECHR about the disgusting treatment I am getting from the UK justice system.

I am personally not suspicious but have now had the Singh trilogy. Firstly Jag Singh he is the technical mind behind Labourhome.org, a colleague of Alex Hilton. Then there is Rabinder Singh QC who refused my application for Judicial review over legal aid for civil litigation. After that came Simon Singh who recommended Robert Dougans to David Osler and is also part of the left-wing spectrum in general. There we have all the Singhs in one basket.

Osler and Co are a bunch of hypocrites

There we are then John Gray, Alex Hilton and most of all David Osler going on day in, day out how strong their love of the left-wing Labour movement is and how much they despise right-wing Tories and they spread their Socialist ideology over their new propaganda machine the internet and what do they do, engage themselves a Conservative lawyer to get them out of trouble. So how does the victory feel Mr Osler, having won with the help of a Conservative lawyer? Does it feel good? I just wonder whether Osler now repays the favour and actually joins the Conservative Party because he got some free help from them. It is bizarre, to say the least that a right-wing lawyer defends a bunch of Socialists for free.

No need to say next time the Conservatives need someone to give out leaflets in our area, they can ask Osler and Co to do it for them or maybe we see Alex Hilton and Iain Dale do the honours in the Tower Hamlets area.

And then of course John Gray and Alex Hilton can’t wait until Robert Dougans represents them as well for free. Some people just lose all their principles if the price is right, ahem the price is free. How does that go down with John Gray’s new-found electorate that he proudly represents as Labour councillor and his Union friends that fight the bad Tory capitalists. What a joke, they are welcome to each other, they deserve each other.

A matter of public interest

I suppose we all can remember when Damian Green, Conservative MP for Ashford since 1997 had his parliamentary offices raided under the then Home Secretary Jackie Smith who failed to get re-elected. Damian Green is now a member of David Cameron’s government and has become Minister of State for Borders and Immigration.
At the time when Damian Green became the victim of Terror law, the Conservative Party and really even Labour supporters cried out and rallied round Damian Green, lamenting how terror laws could be abused to terrorize innocent citizens and smear them ultimately.Then the press reported about it but nobody now would report about Damian Green as “former terror suspect Damian Green”.
At the time I posted a post titled “Support Damian Green as politician with integrity”.

And I also thought it was not right that the Labour Party should be able to search the offices of opposition parliamentarians under Terror laws. At the time Commons speaker Martin got into severe difficulties that he had allowed the search.

I wholly supported that campaign because I think it is fundamentally wrong that terror laws should be used to terrorize ordinary citizens, doing their jobs. This was only very recently and Damian Green has now been elevated to a Minister.
Yet in my case I had been arrested falsely over 32 years ago by the German police in circumstances I do not understand to this day but I am now systematically hounded in the blogger sphere and called terror suspect or even ex-terrorist because of the ruling of Mr Justice Eady.
Because of the continuous reporting in that style about me since 3 years I have become unemployable. Unfortunately I have no big campaign behind me and I fall victim to such reporting.
But it is very important that victims of sensational terror reporting and terror laws unite because what happens to me can happen to others. My career, my life has been totally destroyed by this reporting. My Google profile is now so bad, I could not even get a job as a cleaner. Yet I have not gotten a police record, have never broken the law and not even gotten a warning against me. I have a totally clean police record. The German police have destroyed all their records that are older than 30 years, yet Labour bloggers Gray and Osler mainly now (to a certain extent Hilton) keep on digging the boot in and they and their friends spread rumours widely that I am a former Baader-Meinhof or terror suspect.
Strictly speaking it is true that I was once suspected of being seen near a facility that contained household materials that could be used for terror purposes but that was dropped and I was fully compensated. Yet I am constantly and persistently being reported about as former terrorist or former terror suspect. This has to stop. But what can happen to me, can happen to you and the recent ruling of Justice Eady assures it can.
What is even more surprising about this turn of events in the legal case is that Conservatives actively support the strategy to support the Labour Bloggers. .The support started with the Conservative Blogger Iain Dale and now a Conservative Party member (at least so I understand) Robert Dougans from Bryan Cave LLP, Conservative Party member, from Limehouse and Poplar constituency, acts as pro-bono lawyer for the Labour Party bloggers to have my case thrown out of court. Of course Iain Dale started off supporting Alexander Hilton from Labourhome but that has now spread to all the other Labour bloggers and they now hope because the case against Osler was thrown out their cases will also be thrown out.

What is of public interest is that the Conservative Party on one hand supports their own Minister for being unjustly treated under terror laws, yet party members work actively in my case to discredit me being another victim of Labour Party activity in this case blogging.
I spent a lot of time supporting the Conservative Party both locally and during the Boris Johnson Mayoral elections, when I practically worked long hours in their support.
But apart from this, the case-law handed down by Eady will have far reaching consequences, which cannot be in the interest of ordinary folk that one can be hounded forever because of one stale suspicion that happened over 32 years ago and that is now destroying all my job prospects, imagine it can happen to you, your children.

It can happen to anyone, even the most respectable people like Members of Parliament that terror police suspect you for something and you do not even know what is happening to you and that this can be held against you for the rest of your life is plainly wrong. What happened in my case is that I tried to do something about it and that now my own political party turns against me in the legal process but actively asks me to support the local election campaigns. Very strange and I can’t quite understand the point of it, whilst at the same time promoting a member of parliament to minister when he was unjustly suspected of terror connections. I fully support Damian Green and I am very pleased to see that he has gotten himself a ministerial post, I blogged quite a bit in his support but cannot now understand how civil liberties are flaunted in favour of bloggers and against the victims of irresponsible blogging.

Article 10 of the Human Rights convention has 2 parts to it, part 1 the right to freedom of expression but part 2 is supposed to safeguard the objects of such blogging and there I think Eady’s judgment in too far in the favour of the bloggers, supported by Conservative Party member Robert Dougans. Because if the Conservative Party stands behind the legal support Robert Dougans gives to Labour bloggers then our civil rights will be eroded considerably to the point that Internet publications can ruin law abiding citizen’s profiles so that careers will be destroyed forever.

I do not know whether the acting of Conservatives in my case is a matter of Conservative strategy as such or whether the party even knows about this, but they probably will find out about it now. I continue to support Conservative politics and policies and just hope the party can align their policies in matters such as libel properly and that this judgment against me will be overturned as it has many unlawful aspects to it, as you can see on my grounds of appeal on the right.
The libel laws as they stand at the moment mean that because of the Jameel rule anybody can be bullied via Internet publications forever because the court won’t accept that it has been published, that is unlawful in European terms I think and the Jameel rule was not yet tested in a EU court. But even other aspects of the Eady decision are unlawful I think, especially under Human Rights terms.

Furthermore we all remember the Damian McBride and Prejudice scandal that was highlighted in this BBC article on 20 July 2009, whereby Gordon Borwn’s former personal advisor planned blogging smear campaigns against Conservative members. Even Gordon Brown then at the time personally apologised and distanced himself from such plans. Yet the idea to run smear campaigns on the Internet is legally sound because of the Jameel doctrine, one can practically not prosecute internet bloggers for online libel because of the proof of publication. Then the Conservative Party made a big fuss about this and said it would be objectionable to run such smear campaigns. What is interesting in my case now Kaschke v Osler, that it is a Conservative Lawyer that is enforcing the Jameel rule in my case against a Labour Blogger, who I think runs a smear campaign against me. This means that the Conservative Party is now happy to accept that smear campaigns can be run on the Internet using the Jameel ruling. It is very ironic that it had to be a Conservative Party lawyer to enforce smear law against me a Conservative Party member.  Lets see how this develops because if it goes on like this we might in the future see Conservatives smearing Labour members if the current law stands.

Victims of Terror unite

Victims of terror of any type should unite against this very liberal ruling of Mr Justice Eady in the case Kaschke v Osler in protest to put a stop to the joking promotion of terrorism as if it was a very casual conversation topic and even funny.

Even the judge himself has been prosaic pictured wearing the t-shirt of a well-known terrorist group Brigade Rosse, as a result of the ruling. Justice Eady, who has been said to hate the press, but he has now found something he hates even more, which is me, a German immigrant, posing a threat to English law in relation to the Human Rights legislation, which saw the UK lose a trial at the Human Rights court over their refusal to grant legal aid to libel litigants, that want to save their good name but cannot afford to pay the libel lawyers fees.

What the Dougans camp now want to achieve is to ban all litigants, that cannot pay fees outright from bringing cases. There are several considerations to be taken into account, one is of course that lawyers in general see a threat to their professions because of the Tesco law, whereby cheap legal advice will be available  in supermarkets and also that libel lawyers can command immense fees for their services. Yet think about it, if all poor persons lose the right to protect their good name, their future will be blackened through publications whilst they are too poor to defend themselves and when it becomes apparent later that such publication would make it impossible for a person or their children to take up public office because of an ancient publicity, then it will become apparent, that we are creating an underclass of people who are subjected to abuse by the press. We must prevent this happening, we must prevent it from happening that people’s names can be abused to report jokingly about terrorist groups or activities as if it were a  normal thing to do.  It is bad enough already that we can purchase fashion items with the Baader-Meinhof logo on.

Courts tend to let cases go on the more money the parties can pay and the more compensation is at stake but the right to a good name cannot  really be measured in the amount of compensation a defamatory publisher can pay. We’ll end up with a situation where only rich people are allowed to a have a good name because publishers can libel all the poor people for sheer entertainment.

What we saw in Osler’s blog is the mention of all Catholics should be assassinated and Tony Blair as well and that was put as a joke and all activities of known terrorists laughed about as a matter of online conversation, using my name as the starting block for this and relating to an article about me.

I do not think that the average reasonable citizen, that has been subjected to the results of terrorist attack would find the sickening article Osler wrote and allowed to be published funny. Yet Justice Eady has delivered a judgment that tells people how to look at the posting and commands us how to interpret the ruling in the light of it. This is not within the law of the Defamation Act, the Right for a fair trial or the Supreme Courts Act. Even during the hearing of 23 April 2010, when Justice Eady was favouring a new trial date, the third one so far, he changed his mind when Robert Dougans reminded him that he (Eady J) won’t be sitting in September 2010 and had to determine the issue now. This implies that another judge would not rule in the same way. Sir David Eady left a considerable case law legacy but some of it has not been thoroughly approved EU wide and may fall foul of certain regulations. Justice Stadlen was very wise to be cautious in applying legal principles that were founded on other scenarios.

I am upset about this and will now work on the permission to appeal this ruling and it is going to be a lot of work for me.  Whats is even harder is not to be able to discuss much of it when I do not have anybody to discuss this with. It was easier for the McDonald’s pair at least they had each other, but I do not have that pleasure.  I just hope I have your support.

Update: what the court is trying to do is declare libel actions as abuse of process mainly on the Jameel doctrine and then say we do not need to give you fair proceedings because you are abusing the process.  The abuse of process is hinged mainly on the publication rule. The court says unless you proof that something has been published to individuals it has not been published even if it is available on the Internet. That is the sticking point of it.

Of course all that is going on without ever making that legal advice commonly available to people and they are given all the free listing fees just to be told then after years of legal process that they have abused the process.

Yet all that coincides with Human Rights Laws that contradict that thinking and it is important to sort out the law on an EU basis or we will continue to go around in circles. How can a court possibly dismiss the hurt, distress and loss caused to victims of reckless publishers to legal principles about publication numbers when we have to live with this day after day?

Hail strategy

I think the “Hail the excellent Robert Dougans” strategy doesn’t help the UK in the determination of the libel laws. Such propaganda only helps him to get extra work and provides free advertisement for him but in essence would have been fit for a Roman emperor or other dictatorial persons. I think it is a real shame that law  firms can exploit the pro bono procedure to make free  advertising for themselves.  This ruling will never stand up before the ECHR as it is and Robert Dougans knows it. Dougans now thinks it is generous to drop all costs in the case for a paltry £2.000 when his firm is due to make many, many thousands out of the free advertisement.  Even Justice Eady remarked on the on-the-spot-offer as not being correctly made. I will not sell my right to a fair trial and fair determination of the issue for any price.

It also jeopardises a proper determination of the law if newspapers tint judgments in a particular light. The law is not as simple as just to say one thing or another. It is very complex and calling on Ken Clarke to find a solution to lower costs is basically a good idea but where is the call for free legal advice to go with any suggestions. The Defamation Act of 1996 asks for a determination of issues per jury trial, and the only way to reduce those costs is by an application for summary judgment. 

These lawyers are trying to use me as a guinea pig to push through new legislation and that is beyond reasonable doubt. A determination of content by a single judge on the defamation  is against the Supreme Court Act and the Jameel  doctrine has never been tested on in the ECHR, simply because it was used in proceedings, that involved 2 foreign, non EU litigants on either side of the case. To say a claim is an abuse of process when that is judged in an unfair hearing is itself an abuse of process. There must be a lawyer on either side of the argument to make any decision fair.

It is also quite disturbing, from a sexist point of view that as soon as Robert  Dougans with male client David Osler wins a hearing the press gets mad and falls over themselves to support the 2 blokes, but when I won an earlier hearing before Justice Stadlen, that contradicts the very outcome of the Eady hearing, the press kept it as quiet as possible, including my local rag.

Lets just face it, ultimately a case is  not over before it has been processed by all instances of a UK court and then also by the EU courts to make it really, really clear and I think that Justice Eady knows that I can come up with some very good arguments and he has respect for this and I thank him for that. However the judgement is rather polemic and not properly founded and I shall point out my exact reasons why I say that in my permission to appeal application.

This quite unusual Eady ruling is a set back for all those victims of terrorism who now have to watch how terrorism is jokingly trivialized by the press, the results of which we have seen already.  I am just posting that to assure all those victims of terrorism that I shall take up their rights under the article 10. And then to say that I was arrested during the Baader-Meinhof hysteria in Germany puts this case into a huge quantitative  frame and if I asked now each and every person, that was arrested in Germany during the 70s,80s and 90s, when Baader-Meinhof were active, to come forward, we would come up with a huge number of persons, so that frame of mind is very unpractical, it was  merely dictated by the press who exploited that. I feel victim to that as well and I do not like it one bit. I refused an offer from Der Spiegel to purchase the copyright for the sickening and untrue story they printed about me in issue 39/1975, currently before the European  Court of Human Rights and I shall refuse to drop a case for a discount price. Mr Osler could consider allowing his pro bono lawyer to pay his costs when he loses the case in the end.

Mr Dougans should be ashamed to ask me for £2,000 knowing that I have lost my business due to the immense amount of work I had to put in this case over the last 2 years. He should in penance, immediately donate £2,000 to the Great Ormand Street Hospital instead.

Stand by your man

If it helps to resolve this case against Osler, I will make comments about the posting of Stroppybird here.

David Osler hardly did anything during the pre-action protocol but insisted on defending the claim  on merits, he claimed to have a win-win situation. He just filled in a couple of forms and put together a defence. He told me he wants to have the election period to canvass and support for the Labour Party and all those excuses of holding off the trial were put up for that reason. I have evidence for that. If David Osler wants to take time off work to support  his mates at hearings that is entirely his own decision and has nothing to do with me. David Osler has told me that he is so broke he could not pay my costs or any damages if they were awarded in my favour, so he could not go on a holiday because he has a lot of debt already.

Maybe often in relationships people do not go away for all sorts of reasons and one partner tells the other partner some excuses for whatever purpose. I think it is not good to blame these proceedings for not having a  holiday or weekend away for the Oslers. I do not wish to insinuate that the Oslers have family problems I am only commenting because I am being blamed for their lack of holidays.

I always wonder how the blogger clan can manage to come to hearings, don’t they have jobs? My family all have one and they would not take time off to come to hearings to support me, I would not want them to take time off for that purpose, we do have the PSU for psychological support. Not once have I seen that any of the defendants have asked the PSU for support.

Media witch hunt

I shall not reiterate with the same wording to Mr Osler’s character description about me in which he says: “At the end of the day, Ms Kaschke reveals herself as at the very least a thoroughly disingenuous, devious, and despicable person, who brings immense discredit on any political party on which she may happen temporarily to alight, simply by virtue of her presence.”. (I think he removed it now but I still have the copy)

I think it is very bad to describe somebody like that, like myself, I am a law abiding citizen, do not have any criminal record of any type. Of course with the recent bad propaganda about me, do I dare trying to do something about the further blackening of my character. It is clear that this whole legal process has turned out into a witch hunt against me and that is not exactly complementary to the British at all. Unfortunately this “has” to reflect on the British because it is a UK court of law that backs up such arguments of Mr Osler.  I am an immigrant without much family connections in the UK and therefore lack the essential social fibre that could back me up as I spent most of the time being a housewife and mother. I do have a large German family who are land owners and fairly wealthy and start to see the treatment I get here in the UK as racist and sexist as well.  (Racist not in the white sense but in the national pride sense).

I always admired and supported the British in their fight against international fascism but what is apparent here is supporting even further distruction of my character. Not fair at all. It is of course easy for Mr Osler and the court to do so, as I am  completely without any defence, not allowed any legal help, being a widow and single mother, no boyfriend or other partner. I am the ideal victim to burn on the media stake.

I think if the English, the UK, the British stand up for that, it is a poor reflection of the British character or what it has become.

Needless to say it is of course now very, very distressing having to draw up an application for permission  to appeal with all that very depressing reporting from the radical left. I think the British should sweep in front of their own door and not just think that other countries have poor democratic processes, because from what I experience here in the UK there is little hope for any person to achieve any justice because we do not get any help not even in defence of such accusations as quoted above.  I have worked very hard all my life, risked my life as a courier in central london and nobody complained about that, that the only job I could find here in the UK was riding a bicycle in the dangerous west end traffic all day to courier parcels around. I had five children to care for and risk my life riding around 12 hours  per day on a cycle in a self-employed position, that was OK. No insurance would have insured me as it was classified more dangerous than being  soldier. In the end I lost so much weight, and gotten very thin as I had not enough time to eat. I then also got bad problems  with my legs and could hardly walk. I cared for a disabled person and then started to work from home on the computer and my business has now been lost. I did start off well here in the UK in 1977 working for the BBC German Service just to mention it and got married after that, but once the children had gotten bigger, I found it very hard to get any cushy jobs. I am absolutely shocked and devastated at Mr Osler’s remarks.

I do think that this is a case for the ECHR because I have not been given any benefit of any doubt and have been caught up in British libel laws and Access to Justice Laws. I do think that the UK courts simply came to the Eady J ruling because Eady J presided over a hearing against Der Spiegel and it would contradict his ruling there if he had now found in my favour on the matter of the Der Spiegel evidence, currently before the ECHR, awaiting a ruling. It is sad that such prejudices hamper a fair hearing.  It is practically totally unheard of that a court can find in favour of Defendants on the basis of purely hearsay evidence as Mr Justice Eady has found in the Osler hearing and I shall make that point to the Court of Appeal and to the ECHR if necessary.

Because if Mr Justice finds that Mr Osler could have gotten the Spiegel information from elsewhere he would have to admit that publication in the UK took place and he is therefore prejudicial to his own finding earlier on.

Of course it is against the interest of the media at large that I bring this case and therefore I can expect little else as getting it from all sides of the media here. There is little to say other than the media happiliy trashes defenceless persons for making their own case.

Scary Jack

I have just come across this further posting of Jack of Kent and what I read there is really scary. It makes those lawyers look like they are ever powerful and hold people’s public live or death in their hands.

The way the Chiropractic Association is described as now being discredited. I think that is completely unfair, they only pulled out because they did not want to commit to further costs through an appeal. How can such heartless lawyers think to destroy a whole profession?

But what is even more interesting is the comment that says: “It was only because of the expertise and time spent of Robert, William, and myself, that we were able to identify the technical bases for the application to strike out; there was no way that any lay person could have realistically done this. This case would have proceeded to trial.” Quite clearly the gentlemen here attest that this was not a fair procedure when I am unable to obtain any type of legal advice I can afford but Dave Osler gets t for free.

“These two years of litigation, and the six months of extensive pro bono work (which otherwise would have cost Dave tens of thousands of pounds at least), show this to be a “fail” for English libel law.” That comment shows that David Osler despite being a well paid journalist and owning  his own home was provided free of charge with valuable legal advice, when others are not so lucky and have to fend for themselves. That proves we are not all the same under the law.

That just reminds me that I have seen, in the long corridors of the courts a Mr Rabinder Singh QC who decided that I have no rights to legal representation under Article 6 ECHR, when he decided about my Application for Judicial Review

I would like to ask anyone who is not sure about the problems with current libel laws to read the report of the “Libel working group” dated 23 March 2010, which approaches the situation more realistically than the fascist ideas Jack of Kent and his pals have. People like Osler and pals just want to stop others from using their right under Article 10 and protect themselves and some parts of the legal profession want to remove that right from a group of people, which is unlawful discrimination. Please be very careful before you sign that petition about the libel reform desired by these people.

There is a responsible approach being made by the current Conservative government and people should not want to force reforms that are not in tone with our democracy. People like those lawyers remind me of the film “the Devil’s Advocate“.

Fair Justice for all

Since yesterday’s posting I tried to get Pro Bono support, I contacted the Pro Bono Unit and they sent me an application form by e-mail. In this application form it says I have to be referred by a legal professional.

OK, I thought, let’s get onto the Tower Hamlets Law Centre and ask them to refer me to get entitlement to Pro Bono representation. No Such luck.

I forwarded the Pro Bono application form to the Tower Hamlets Law centre and described the case and asked them to refer me to the Pro Bono Unit and the Tower Hamlets Law Centre refused to do so. They say, they are not allowed to deal with Defamation cases.

Of course if you look into the Access to Justice Act, it clearly says, that Defamation is excluded from legal aid services.  So the fact of the matter is, that as a poor person one cannot even get a referral to a Pro Bono unit because under Legal Aid we are not supposed to get any assistance.

This means anyone entitled to legal aid is not entitled to any referral to a pro bono unit and one is therefore barred from any support.

To get a referral to a Pro Bono Unit I would have to pay a lawyer to write me such a referral but unfortunately I cannot afford that. What in effect the Access to Justice Act does, that Act was introduced into British Justice by the Labour Party is say to victims of a libel, OK, you get access to the British courts, you are allowed to bring your claim and to protect your good name,  but you cannot get any legal assistance to help you do it.

What a nonsense situation the Labour Party has gotten us into here then! People on benefit cannot even get a referral to a pro bono unit.

This then culminates in a court procedure were I have to defend my good name in a court of law but without any legal support. Of course Labour Party member David Osler, gets Pro Bono Support from the Deputy Chairman of the Society of Labour Lawyers, Mr Joel Bennathan QC, but I cannot even get a referral to a Pro Bono Unit.

I did get a referral at the beginning of the procedure by a private lawyer but was refused as the case is too complex for them and now I cannot even get a new referral because under Legal Aid, Law Centres are not allowed to give me even that assistance.

So the Labour Party introduced the Access to Justice Act but has forgotten to put in a clause that Litigants in Person can get so much advice as to ensure they can get access to a Pro Bono representation.

It’s easy then for Labour Party members to libel poor litigants as Labour gives Labour members all the resources to defend the case against opponents that cannot defend themselves, that is “Labour equality” for you.

Interesting of course that Mr Joel Bennathan QC usually works to get terrorist suspects off the charges and proves that they are not guilty and he is very good at that. Here he will have to work against his grain and slip into a role reversal. Of course there is a Labour Party allegiance between Mr Osler and Mr Bennathan QC. Mr Osler, being a member of The Labour Party Representations Committee and Mr Bennathan being Deputy Chairman of the Society of Labour Lawyers.

This situation is of course completely controversial to my Human Rights and my Civil Liberties as I will have no equality.

I shall fight that case through the court and I reckon if I lose in the UK court the UK will look really bad in Human Rights terms. I want justice for underprivileged litigants. I want fair Justice for all. I cannot understand how any QC can enjoy defending a case against a defenceless person. But if I win, that would be something to celebrate.

Apparently in this case we are all defendants. I have to defend myself against the smears of Mr Osler and I can only defend myself against the smears of Mr Osler, by bringing a claim and then Mr Osler has to defend his smear against me. Just so that we can satisfy the Defamation Act, the Defamation Act asks any person that doesn’t like a publication to bring a claim within 12 month of noticing it or it is assumed that one agrees to what has been published.

I am just writing that for the benefit of the many law students that follow my case.

Access to Justice is not enough. Cherie Booth Blair is an advocate for it in the World Justice Forum. We need fair representation for all. How can any impoverished litigant in person possibly enrich the legal process and advance the Rule of Law when one hasn’t even got enough money to copy all the paperwork. We don’t even get free access to a reference library and have to rely on the internet to catch up on case law, the Internet access of course also costs money and according to my Internet Service provider I use 500 MB per month. Cherie Booth Blair is a hopeless romantic.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits