The contemporary sting of privacy

I think David Cameron’s suggestion that the matter of privacy is one for government and not for judges is most interesting because it puts the matter out of the contemporary limelight and gives it a more general direction.

Of course anything enshrined in law cannot be case-lawed away by eager judges. Judges of course are basically representing national interests, which includes business interests and political ones. So the interests of powerful individuals could be jeopardized depending on which side of the political spectrum they reside or what business interests they represent. It seems that case-law is a flexible as gum in the mouth of those who chew it.

On one hand the private lives of the average person is of little interest other than to statistics but powerful people’s lives are peer behaviours. The moral and ethical fibre of society hangs on the behaviour of powerful individuals and the press has the power to emphasize the behaviour of some more than that of others.

To suggest that parliament makes clear laws under which to handle such incidences is the most refreshing new influx into public relations politics so far.

The particular case talked about also includes employment matters, which could well end up before tribunals and if a powerful gagging order restrains any type of reporting about the causes of employment problems,which could include that ever so powerful celebrity, then a serious gap is being torn into the freedom of the press indeed, so serious that in fact a black hole of information is created into which many matters of interest may sink into an unknown abyss.

It remains to be seen whether this ‘conflict’ will become a power struggle between the powerful Mr Justice Eady, a trend-setter in Defamation and Privacy laws and David Cameron, incumbent Prime Minister.  Those are very interesting sparring partners.

Incompatibility of English law

I shall now pack the devil by the horns and make applications to the Court of Appeal to outright complain about it that the court is only willing to protect the rich and ignore the rights of the poor.

Whilst I am fully prepared to accept that rich people deserve  the protection of the law, I also demand that poor persons have equal rights in Civil law, e.g. Defamation.

I shall make applications to the Court of Appeal and complain that I think the judgments especially of Eady J and to a lesser extent of Stadlen J are corrupt and rotten to the core. For Stadlen J’s judgment I have to say that in the most previous one, at least he admits that he is only prepared to work for the rich but for Eady J its a case of just breaking every possible English law to achieve what he wanted to achieve, which is to defend Der Spiegel, defend Lloyds List and those who work for them. Stadlen J tried his hardest to allow the application of Hilton for protection under the E-commerce regulations and it took him several months to realise that he couldn’t and that shows that European regulations are good and cannot be broken by corruption.

I shall complain openly to the Court of Appeal that the court ignores the rights of the poor in favour of the rich and that current English laws are unable to allow equal rights as it is meant “We are all the same under law It is ludicrous to expect that someone who can’t even pay for an application or claim can pay thousands of pounds worth of costs, its simply impossible.  Yet it drains the few resources that a poor person has got, to go through the civil court process just then to find out that the claim has to be dismissed because one cannot guarantee further costs. Like that is not obvious from the start. We used to call it taking the Mickey. Just that in this case the Mickey taker is the court.

It is going to be an interesting proposition for the European Court of Human Rights to rule on the matter, when they will  get hold of it because I do not think that the local court is able to criticise itself sufficiently to start a process of self-healing without the command of the ECHR.

German autumn

As it has been published on Jack of Kent’s blog on 11 July 2010, I was invited to put a case before Mr Justice Stadlen to explain the difference between a generic accusation under §§ 129 in Germany in 1975 and an open accusation of Baader-Meinhof activities.

I have used material that is either distributed or approved of by known Human Rights organisations. I have used material that is established English law and I have even used material that is distributed by left-wing organisations themselves to make my case.

For example this dissertation by a well known Human Rights campaigner Dr. Rolf Gössner gives an excellent oversight of what happened in Germany under the legislation. I have provided as evidence a transcript of an arrest warrant of a Dr Croissant who was a lawyer to the Baader-Meinhof gang, that was issued against him in 1975, this clearly shows that the state accused him of working with the Baader-Meinhof gang, whilst in comparison my own arrrest warrant never did.

Furthermore I have shown how that same paragraph 129 was even used against the Church of Scientology.

I have provided the court with the whole history of the German anti=criminal legislation and how it has changed since 1871. For those that cannot read German, you can have this translated online by Google within 5 minutes.

All in all I have shown that Osler’s view that I had been accused of links to the ultra-leftist Baader-Meinhof gang is plain stupid and simplistic and can only be brought by a simpleton like David Osler, John Gray and Alex Hilton.

It is plainly a falsification of history. What is worrying though that Robert Dougans tries to put Justice Stadlen under pressure to find the same as Justice Eady, suggesting that Justice Stadlen has not got the autonomy to make a differing decision. There is no case law for something like that. If Justice Stadlen was forced to find the same as Justice Eady that would take away his right to even consider evidence that was before him.

Robert Dougans pointed out that Osler is now free to re-publish his lies and distortions. Strange that an English court supports that. Considering that Der Spiegel even offered me Euro 5.000 to allow them to keep on printing the further lies about me, we can conclude that what we read online and or in the press can be a bunch of lies and the courts do nothing to protect the readers from lies or only in cases where it involves prominent persons.

I refused the Euro 5,000 from Der Spiegel, I shall appeal in the English courts as long as I can in the hope that truth will prevail. If you look in the Definition of Liberty on the Human Rights Article 10, Freedom of expression, you know that you just cannot write anything but that this right is conditional. Even the Press Complaints Commission has set standards for reporting and those standards have been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights.

All my arguments are within the realms of recognised Human Rights organisations and not right-wing.

There is a considerable difference whether one was arrested under a German legislation of 1975 that included all types of groups, e.g. Animal Rights campaigners, and/or was mainly used to investigate groups of people of no distinction but just because they congregated is a considerable difference to being outright accused of Baader-Meinhof membership. Please I urge you again to read this article by Dr. Rolf Gössner here to get the idea of what was going on in Germany during the 70s.

There certainly is cause for concern

Considering how tolerant the highest court in Britain is over postings to do with the alleged terrorist involvement of normal everyday people, I think it is quite reasonable to feel alarmed when the budget for the police has been cut drastically.

The combination of less money for the police, combined with an increased tolerance of terrorist propaganda, it doesn’t surprise me that the most senior police officer in the UK shows concerns.

Lets just look at the latest case that adorns the High Court. Former Minister Phil Woolas, Labour, used an election leaflet to warn his constituents of the Liberal Democrat opponent who had alleged Muslim extremist links. Source

This type of constant familiarization of terrorist ties with normal every people, even political representatives that live and work in our communities, slowly but surely familiarise us with the concept that people with terrorism links reside amongst us.

I think we all feel fearful about reporting of that sort but so far in my case the High Court has refused to condemn reporting by Labour member Osler, who openly promotes anarchists, left-wingers, communists and others on his website and was only too eager to use similar smears though nothing to do with Muslim extremists as in the olden days they did not exist so prominently.

It is a breach of the Human Rights Act to abuse Freedom of expression, Article 10 where it states: “….The exercise of these freedoms (freedom expression), since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others….”

In my view the constant reporting about terrorist links actually makes propaganda for terrorists, because the more they are mentioned in the public media, the more people think about them and the more they get known. Terrorists like that, even if the reporting is in a negative way.

It is definitely not in the interest of law and order to make reports that needlessly worry people. Yet the Freedom of expression rule is currently held up very high in favour of the publishers by the High Court’s latest judgements, that saw even Mr Justice Eady pictured wearing a Brigade Rosse t-shirt by one of Osler’s mates.  How ridiculous is it going to get before it gets better?

Those type of reports are mushrooming in the media and it is getting to the point of ridiculous. We are fed up with it, we do not want to hear it, smears that criminalize ordinary people just for the sake of it.

Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins is bringing an action under the Representation of the People Act of 1983. I was thinking of using that as one of my authorities, but when I found that this law has 268 pages, I gave up on the idea. But I do welcome the approach as it is not in the interest of the general public to be told lies that unnecessarily make us feel uncomfortable.

Godfrey v Demon overruled

It is my uneducated opinion, that the Godfrey v Demon case has been overruled by the Kaschke v Osler case.

Uneducated because I have no legal training but from pure logic it is the consequence of the Kaschke v Osler case that no evidence is required to proof publication.

In Godfrey v Demon, Dr Godfrey was accused by the defendants that Dr Godfrey himself posted material on a chat site and that people commented on this. However, Dr Godfrey denied that he was the publisher of the words and the Defendants could not proof that he was. Accordingly the Defence was struck out and Dr. Godfrey won his defamation claim.

In my case, the Kaschke v Osler, the defendant Osler says he saw something on my website. Amazingly Mr Justice Eady accepts the mere hearsay of Mr Osler and puts in his judgment that what Mr Osler allegedly saw was the reason for his article and the meaning therein. The meaning of the Osler article is of course the subject of my claim. As you can well imagine by reading this the emphasise lies on allegedly saw on my website.

The main difference now between the Kaschke v Osler and Godfrey v Demon case is that the judge blindfolded accepted what Mr Osler might have seen. I think it puts a very bad precedence in case law that anybody can just come along and say they saw something and that is taken as the truth.

But the judgment of Mr Justice Eady doesn’t only overrule the Godfrey v Demon case it also overrules the case law set by the Stern v Piper case. The exact reference QBENI is 95/0580/E 1996 and is quoted in the latest Ministry of Justice consultation as case law on the subject. Yet Mr Justice Eady has ignored that the defence of Mr Osler on that matter cannot stand because you simply cannot copy something from somewhere else and take this as defence. I am amazed, speechless even about this.

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, 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.

the plot thickens

Britain has lost momentum, that is my personal view and why has it lost momentum, I think it is because Britain has lost honesty. I came to that conclusion during my court cases where I can observe that written evidences are not taken into account and that always the same judge finds a reason to dismiss my cases, and incidentally it is that same judge that doesn’t take the official written evidence into account.

It is the same judge that dismissed my case against Der Spiegel saying there was no publication and it is the same judge that ruled on the Der Spiegel publication during the Osler case, despite having ruled only 1 year earlier that the UK court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is the same judge that ruled in favour of a supporter of Anarchism, Socialism and Communism and it is the same judge that dismissed my case against Osler. Osler works for Lloyds List. Lloyds List have a business interest in Der Spiegel and actually tried to take over part of the company.

Now one reason why I am poor is because I have always been honest and honesty itself doesn’t make anybody rich these days. Yet honesty should be the driving force in Justice and especially in British justice as Britain always wants to be seen as the saviour of the world the Defender of Freedom and Truth. This is now why I am getting stuck into this to disclose to the world that so far the justice that was delivered in my case was not based on the truth but on fancy thinking delivered by that judge again.

Mr Simon Singh has even written an article in The Guardian proclaiming that my case against Osler was thrown out of court very quickly when in fact it was in court since May 2008 and has been recommended for trial by Master Rose and by Justice Eady twice and Justice Eady suddenly changed his mind when Mr Robert Dougans came onto the scene. What I find so absolutely of magnifying importance is, that Justice Eady just believes Mr Osler’s assertions, delivered by Robert Dougans, in disregard and absence of any written proof. There is no investigation into my claims that confidential evidence, that had only been disclosed to lawyers became available on the Internet and was linked to by Osler, the court refuses to investigate this so far.

Now I hate dishonesty, in fact it is proven that I once started to write a book on the Truth. It is still visible on the Wayback machine. I am not even particularly concerned about political orientation of the matter, I am just concerned because the simple truth is being ignored by the court and the case is being steered into one particular direction, namely being dismissed because I think there is something the English want to cover up, why else would such a doctored judgment as the one in Kaschke v Osler be delivered by one of the highest judges in the land. Of course now Mr Dougans has said he will be making an application to have me declared a vexatious litigant, that will bar me from making any further applications to the court.

Why is it that the English have something to hide in the matter?  My evidence is plain to see, there are letters written by the German Attorney General that explain the situation as it is, that an investigation was carried out into one individual, this person (1) I do not know and it is also clear that I was arrested in the centre of Cologne, whilst entering the flat of person (2).  I do not know whether person (1) knows person (2). The arrest warrant is concerned with the property of the person(1)  the investigation was all about. That property is I believe about 100 miles away from Cologne. None of these very important facts were actually mentioned in Justice Eady’s judgment.

There was no mention of Baader-Meinhof, there was no mention of Rote Hilfe in that arrest warrant of 1975, there was merely a generic use of the then Criminal Justice Act, with a potential possibility of terrorist implications. This is compatible to the use of today’s terrorist legislation whereby people are investigated under the Terrorism Act and  it is misused plenty of times. Osler then writes an article assuming a Baader-Meinhof connection, so did his mates Gray and Hilton.

But if we compare that to today’s events, when for example Damian Green’s offices were searched using Anti-Terror legislation, nobody thought of making a connection to Al Qaeda but in my case Osler sees fit to make a connection to Baader-Meinhof. The court accepted Dougan’s submission that in Germany an automatic association to Baader-Meinhof had to be made. Well, if that’s the case an automatic association between Green and Al Qaeda has to be made, according to that logic that Justice Eady has accepted. I believe that no automatic association to any terrorist group should be made by the press unless the charges of the police say so and I think Damian Green will strongly agree with me on that. I am fighting to get it through the court that no connection to a particular terrorist group can be made by the press just because antiterrorism legislation is used against people.

In my case I have no idea who the individual (1)  is, I do not know his political beliefs, I have never met my former boyfriend (2) again, who was arrested with me. I do not know what the outcome of the proceedings against those other 2 individuals (1+2) was but I am certain that neither of them was ever mentioned on any website that is available on the Internet today in connection with Baader-Meinhof. I personally never communicated in any way whatsoever with anybody of the Baader-Meinhof group or any known associates of that group.

For me it is now completely unexplained why the court, here Justice Eady falls over themselves to protect Osler. What is it about Osler that makes the court ignore all available evidence that proves me right? Why is the Dougans now so keen to get me barred from bringing any further legal action? What do the English have to hide?

Apparently other judges in the High Court namely Justice Stadlen, Justice Openshaw, Justice McDuff, Master Rose, have refused to throw the case out and recommended it for trial. It is only Justice Eady so far who is very keen to see the case thrown out and he protects a known supporter of Anarchist, Socialists and Communists in the process.

I think my best option is to put this to the world to judge for themselves because as things go on, I do not think I get any fair treatment in the court as soon as the case comes before Justice Eady. It is more than suspicious that always the same judge rules on the matter, it has never been allowed to come before a jury. I think it will do the United Kingdom harm if unsound judgments and dishonesty can creep into the English justice system and nothing annoys me more than dishonesty. That is why I have decided to dedicate my time to fight this case head on and if necessary unveil corruption, racism, sexism, if that is the case.

I was in the belief that a court would examine evidences to find the truth but instead the court ignores official written evidences and dismisses cases.

What is so really interesting is the fact that Der Spiegel was desperate to show me in an article about the Baader-Meinhof Group, that they made the association. Why is it that an English court defends that publication so much. It has to be said that Der Spiegel is originally an English publisher who settled into Germany and was then taken over by a German Rudolf Augstein and the Springer Verlag.  That then makes me think, why do the British want to drive Baader-Meinhof in the press forward, what is the British interest in Baader-Meinhof? Obviously the court strongly supports Osler’s Baader-Meinhof associations and the way he discusses it on his blog. Is there any interest of the British security services in it, that Osler gets those public discussions on terrorism going on his blog?  Is Osler’s blog a honey trap for left-wing radicals? It could well be because otherwise the courts were not so keen to defend the man. That would also be a good reason for them to ask the court to bar me from bringing any actions. The plot thickens. There could be even more sinister reasons of an interest the British may have or have had in the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, but I suppose we’ll never find out about that.

Well, I have no choice but to defend my reputation and ultimately my finances as I do not work for the police or the security services and never did. I am almost blind and suffered from a debilitating crippling conditions from age 7 and therefore could never have participated in anything military in any case. And as we all know people with very bad eyesight are barred from police services everywhere. I spent the best of 8 years having hospital treatment (till aged 16) and never even heard of anything left-wing radical in those days in Germany. It is also possible that the whole incident is an attempt by Gray, Hilton and Osler to simply take the mickey out of a single woman who suffers from a certain amount of disabiliy. and that has now turned into a public spectacle.

What is however apparent that I had been interrogated by e-mail about whom I knew in Germany and what I did so that information was collected by the court and now I am being disposed of as I have not gotten any interesting information for them. I think it is as basic as that. But I am not a floorcloth to be used and then thrown away. I will stick up for myself and if it takes me years to do so.

A concession from the Hon. Justice Eady

The order has arrived, the order following the judgment in the case Kaschke v Osler. Now  before I labour down to submit my application for permission to appeal I want to let you know that Hon. Justice Eady has given me a small concession.

I did make submissions for the order and supplied a draft order in which I asked for permission to appeal. I again, this time better and more graphically explained to Justice Eady the nature of my complaint in relation to the laws of the UK.

The Honourable Justice Eady has agreed to stay costs if I make an application for permission to appeal before 8 June 2010. That is of course an offer I cannot refuse, the stay on costs if I ask for permission to appeal. I think what I wrote hit home.  Thank you.

Considering that Osler wanted to have me added to the list of vexatious litigants I am glad that such an order was not made, as I believe only people who repeatedly sue the same person on the same charge without success get added to that list.

Robert Dougans wants to make the law stricter by having asked to add me to that list just because I filed similar law suits against various defendants. I have been advised by a lawyer to bring those cases as well.

I think the Labour and Union Defendants are unable to appreciate the long-term effect of the ruling against Osler in respect of the complainants and on the Defamation law itself. Dougans was only too happy to take on the Osler case for free because it is in the interest of right-wing politicians to stifle the right to complain in defamation and enforce section 10/2 of the Freedom of Speech rule under ECHR.  That is at least my interpretation of that very odd marriage of left-wing labour members with a right-wing Conservative Lawyer. I do not believe Robert Dougans when he said he only took  on the case because I filed a few similar suits against various defendants.

There is certain evidence that some lawyer gotten hold of some confidential paperwork years ago and  passed it onto Osler and also Iain Dale promised Alex Hilton support years ago and a good ruling against Osler also helps Alex Hilton. Iain Dale having submitted a witness statement in the Osler Application about publication on websites and saying that posted content on the Internet doesn’t necessarily get read but I have missed the part about the Google profile. That is exactly the stuff Justice Eady wanted to hear.

Addition on 30 May 2010
Seriousness aside, the offer of the honourable Mr Justice Eady or in short the RCJ is a bit like the discount offer I received from a store in the mail. They offer, “order by 4 June and get 15% off”. The RCJ says “Apply for permisison to appeal by 8 June and get your costs stayed”. Wow, the business approach comparison is remarkable.

Sex discrimination

I think I am suffering from Sex discrimination at the Royal Courts of Justice. Imagine at the hearings I am often the only woman in a group of male lawyers, defendants and the judge as well. That is the most obvious fact but when it comes to establishing the facts of the matter it seems to me the judges are ready to accept the say-so of the male solicitors rather than from my expert point of knowledge. In practise neither of them have any expert knowledge in web matters and they laugh at me because they are in the bigger group and I am the little woman trying to explain to them how the Internet works and that in conjunction with the E-Commerce regulations. I ran a commercial website as web master and had around 18.000 web pages when I stopped doing it because of lack of time.

Does anybody know what a webmaster is? I think proper webmasters are few and far between, because despite the Internet growing those people who actually install and run scripts on servers are a tiny group of people because most web services work on a ready made kit solution, where you use browser software to use the internet. It’s the web master that installs those scripts that allow you to use the browser based software to enjoy sites like Facebook for example. It’s a highly technical job, needing minute attention to detail and highly specialised knowledge.

This is the same with Facebook, eBay, BBC, BT or WordPress. Most of us using those services are recipients of the services those websites allow us to use. The web has become very user-friendly but those who sit in the backrooms of the large web services providers trail through thousands of pages worth of perl scripts or php scripts to allow us all to use those user-friendly websites.

In my court case it has repeatedly become clear that neither the judges nor the solicitors or the defendants for that matter know the actual functionality of a web master. Most of us who even rent their own web spaces get a user friendly browser panel solution where we use pre-made website kits and we can now chose from a range of interchangeable variations. If you looked into the web master’s room at eBay and could see how eBay works we would see thousands and thousands of pages of mathematical looking web scripts that sit on a web server and allow us to see on the Internet what we are seeing.

Solicitors do not know what Fax to E-mail means and it happened that when I didn’t get a fax because there was a service interruption and told that to the defendant, the solicitor shot off a letter to the court, saying how much I lie and how ridiculous it is even to suggest that a fax arrived in the e-mail. There are many providers now falling over themselves to provide fax to e-mail services even completely free of charge. Your faxes even arrive in a neat pdf format in your e-mail account.

I have always been a little bit special in my endeavours. In 1976, I was the only woman engineering student in my class in Cologne. I was the only woman to work in a tool makers department of a factory among only men. Many people could not possibly imagine that I know about webmasters and computer programming when they see me walk down the street pushing my shopping trolley and strolling through the park with my grand/children.

I am feeling that now even judges are taken in by those perceptions that women do not know about technical matters. I am getting the feeling they do not even want to listen. I do miss Master Rose who was at least prepared to be open minded and he was a very old-fashioned and old-school gentlemen who wore a bowler hat, yet his politeness forbade him to just ignore what I said because in the good old days men were polite towards women. Even if that was his only motive to take my technical expertise into account, at least he did take it into account whilst now I’m just overrun with simplistic solutions to a complicated matter. The latest Eady judgment is proof of that. Just yesterday I got a letter from Robert Dougans that again shows that he doesn’t know how websites are generated and arguments are brought forward that could only come from someone who wants to exploit their missing knowledge to convince the court that I must be lying just because they do not know about the technical know-hows. I am certain if I now would bring in a highly paid expert things would change in my favour but why should I have to do that when I do know the same thing. I have been working on the Internet for over 20 years. Who still knows how Cobol worked on the large discs with mainframe computers? I think there are only a few Internet Service providers left that even let raw web space to business. That is a mere empty web space, probably equipped with a web counter, and or a visitor log. Most large web services providers use their own racks anyhow.

Just imagine lots of men sitting in a court room, neither of them have specialist knowledge about the subject, laughing at me because I bring an argument that neither of them understand. I just hope that Master Leslie, who doesn’t know anything about web masters is prepared to give me at least a listen to.

If you look at the judgement of the honourable Mr Justice Stadlen, you see that in many places he has referred to further examination at trial, because of a lack of evidence. Now the defendants want to take away my opportunity to submit a witness statement on the basis of my web master expertise to prepare for that trial to examine the issue that Justice Stadlen has invited us to examine at trial. Now this is going to be a discussion on the 25 June 2010 before the Master.  It would be more than discrimination if I could not prepare a witness statement for that proposed trial. If Master Leslie finds for the Defendants that would make very bad case law and take away our right to discuss the contents of a judgement that leaves many questions open due to lack of evidence.

It would be more than discrimination if the court again would fail to examine the real issues with the web site functionality and Mr Hilton’s actual role on his website. Yet Mr HIlton had refused to give evidence at the Stadlen hearing but acknowledged that evidence is necessary to determine the issue.

Of course Robert Dougans is already busy drafting his throw out application. He is now encourage by the Eady v Osler decision. Mr Dougans admitted he could not believe himself how quickly the case got thrown out on his application.

Unfortunately because of the general ready receptiveness of Justice Eady to believe all the submissions of Mr Dougans I am now in a spot of bother. If  the Court of Appeal is not willing to look at that judgement again, I have no choice but take the case to Europe.

But the worst thing is that now the court doesn’t even want to examine the evidence any longer and simply listens to the hearsay Mr Dougans proposes to the court as truth when the actual written evidence before the court says completely something else. Hence we gotten the latest Eady judgement. I still have not gotten the order from that and I am trying to convince the honourable Mr Justice Eady to allow me permission to appeal on the basis that there is no evidence for many of the things said in the judgement. In a criminal trial we would cry miscarriage of justice if a court finds a defendant guilty on the basis of hearsay evidence, yet in a civil hearing that seems to be the norm.

My sense of fairness and justice is enraged and I now have a job to proof to a court of law that a judgment is based only on hearsay evidence and in coming to that judgment I believe the court has broken almost all UK laws. At the moment I have lost all believe in British Justice because the overwhelming misleading statements of the male defendants are taken as face value without further examination. Let this be an example to women who want to sue multiple men in a court of law that the sexual discrimination one receives for doing so is enormous.

In fairness I must however state that in the case Kaschke v Der Spiegel  I was ousted by a group of female  lawyers, but they pleased a male judge nevertheless.

Kaschke v Osler case from a Human Rights perspective

The outcome of the case shows overall a decline for Human Rights in the UK. The issue of Free Speech is only one part of the Human Rights legislation and as I have explained before too much free speech will result in a Nazi propaganda machine. Again to remind you Hitler had total free speech, without any restrictions and he was able to send Germany into doom with it. We should remind ourselves of the state of Germany in 1918, it was just after World War I when the left had gotten rid of the monarchy and provided a path for the Right to Rise, the Right in those days were an extension of the Extreme left because Hitlers party was basically a Socialist Party.

This comprehensive WordIQ definition is a very good one, please scroll down to the Weimar Republic and Third Reich definitions that deals with the decline in the Monarchy and a loss of Justice when Hitler took over.  The decline of the Monarchy in Germany was a very sudden one and the problems that resulted from it where very radical and compact too. Today’s state of the UK in comparison to Germany after World War I could be related to the state of the UK after the Iraq war and we still have the Afghan war going on. If that status of international conflict becomes more rather than less then we must be very careful not to slide into a state of lawlessness as the Germans did in the 1920s.  From that point of view the Conservative election win was badly needed to restore the social equilibrium in the UK to a good level to avoid a slide into Anarchy and confusion and that is the main reason why I supported the Conservative Party for that purpose.

What we see in the UK today is a slow decline of the Monarchy. In that sense the latest developments of a loss of seats for hereditary peers in the House of Lords and the latest legal attack on a member of the Royal Family namely Prince Charles from a firm of architects are digging away on the power of the British monarchy slowly but steadily. Prince Charles is being sued over a letter he wrote about a building development and he didn’t like the architecture of it. Together with the financial turmoil of the Crown Estates, that want to sell off much of their housing stock, we see a decline in financial power of the monarch especially as the tax status of the Queen has been aligned with others.

The Convention of  Human Rights interestingly is a very well drawn documents and the basic Articles within it, taken as a whole provide an excellent basis for legislature to draw on. It does not exclude monarchies nor the death penalty but provides a series of basic mechanisms to ensure a fair judicial and public process within each country. And this ruling undermines that fair process by calling it an abuse of judicial process for very dubious reasons. That compares to the McDonald libel trial where the defendants were part of a proper legal process that was  there to allow a huge multi-million pound company to restore its public pride. The UK has been told off by the ECHR over a lack of Jury trials in Defamation cases, the Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom, was undoubtedly the most famous one. Whilst Steel and Morris were defending they were no less litigants in libel proceedings without legal aid as well as I am. Yet in my case the UK says I do not even have a right to ask for a judicial reparation of my good name, they even say I do not have a good name to defend, even though I do not have any criminal record and never had any convictions in my whole life.

In the Kaschke v Osler ruling there were a number of concerning issue in relation to Human Rights. The Right to a Fair Trial of course that demands, even under the Supreme Courts Act a Jury trial. That is coupled with a determination that implies that even persons that have only been arrested but not charged suffer a loss of civil liberty in respect of their good name, especially as the base matter took place more than 30 years ago when the Data Protection Act forces the authorities to destroy all files, that is similar to the DNA controversy whereby suspects’ DNA cannot be held beyond a certain point if there is no charge. That is hotly disputed because in one particular case the suspect in a murder could only be found because of stale DNA. Yet in my case no DNA ever linked me any crime and no DNA was ever taken, and if it was during dental treatment without my knowledge it certainly never linked me to any crime scene, terrorist or otherwise.

It should concern the public at large if a false arrest that took place over 30 years ago can be taken to lower the legal status a any person, regardless of the reasons because publications report about it in a distorting manner. If you go today to a demonstration and you are arrested because of over-eager reasons of the police, then the law can say 35 years later, yes but if someone now calls you a terrorist they are entitled to do it because you were arrested after a demo 35 years ago. That is what happened to me, just that I wasn’t even at a demo I merely entered a flat during a search. I do not even know the political orientation of the persons that were also mentioned on my arrest warrant and do not know one of them at all. Justice Eady now takes this as a reason to allow Osler to say I allegedly had a Baader-Meinhof link because the Baader-Meinhof group was active in the 70s in Germany and he assumes that the arrest took place because of left-wing activities.

This is a catastrophic outcome of a libel trial and indicates a huge loss of human rights for all of us from the perspective of Free Thought and Free Association and also indicates that there is a further Right-wing move towards the criminalization of all those that were processed by a police procedure at any time in their lives if the press takes it up and reports about it wrongly. Further the determination of that issue by a single judge without the input of a jury, suggesting a view on the matter that is binding on us all, is a total demolishing of Freedom of Thought for all of us.

In that case Osler has achieved a verdict against himself and his friends because they are mainly left-wing activists and he did so with the help of a right-wing lawyer who was only too happy to push that verdict through. Just that Osler in his personal dilemma didn’t realise the chilling effect of the judgment of Mr Justice Eady because he was worried about his home and financial standing.

It is even more concerning that some people suggest I could be mentally ill because I ask for a Jury trial. It is an issue of immense and important public interest whether persons can be connected to terrorist groups and/or terrorist activity just because they were once processed under terrorist related legislation. It will blight the lives of a lot of people if that is the case and will ruin their ability to take up public positions now or in the future and might even affect their families. There are plenty of examples where police misuse anti-terror legislation and I show a few examples in these links here. Police misuse anti-terror laws. Student challenges use of terror act. Campaigners win hearing over anti-terror powers.

In my case the high-court refuses to determine the case fully because they say the pay-out would not justify the expense. This is sadly a wasted opportunity for Human Rights organisations to decide the issue of libellous reporting of the victims of the anti-terror laws and the follow on press reporting that wants to portray me in the terrorism light because they wish to push a terrorist affiliation of people that were processed under such terror laws.

In my case the smear campaign that was started in 1975 and continued in 2007 by Labour bloggers, because they wanted to punish me for being critical, as Mr Gray happily admits, I am now practically unemployable, have no chance to get any public position and cannot earn any money, more so had to close my company because the proceedings took so much of my time because I am not entitled for any legal help. A Citizen Advice Bureau is not even allowed to refer me to a pro-bono unit.

My Google profile is so bad because of the prolonged left-wing smear campaigns that profile me as a  former  Baader-Meinhof linked person, former sympathiser and all sorts of terrorist implications that is causing me severe problems even just to earn a living that would be adequate for my experience and educational background. More so all persons that cannot get a job shall be forced to work for their benefits and in my case a public smear campaign does deprive me of the possibility to earn a wage and forces me into slave labour and the ability to earn a decent wage is lost.

The court tolerates it that someone calls you ridiculous names, so then you lose your job and have no money to get vindication and then the court says you cannot guarantee the expenses of the Defendants and have no right to restrict their Freedom of speech. I am speechless.

This does not affect only me but others who can find themselves in a similar situation. That the High Court says they refuse to process the claim because the compensation is not high enough is simply a denial to deliver justice. The courts do not take the Internet as publication platform serious enough but because of the Limitation period of one year what is online now and will still be there in 10 years can have very serious consequences for a person when the uptake of the Internet grows as it does today. What today might be a forgotten blog, might become a very important publication later down the line.  We can see how it has changed, in 1975 nobody would have thought that there would be a reproduction of publications on the Internet and we will see  an increase of even more Internet importance in the future.

Justice Eady says public smears should be dealt with as per Right of Reply but what comes up in search engines results are often only poignant headlines and there is no guarantee that this Right of Reply will ever  be found. The persons good name is damaged by the constant allegations of terrorist connections when there are none just because someone wants to employ their fantasy in a sickening manner. I think Human Rights Groups should consider this very important aspect of the situation. Especially the tendency for the UK courts is to dismiss claims brought by poorer litigants because they obviously do not deserve a payout when the court decides they have no good reputation to protect. That is the worst case scenario condemning people to an obscure life as underling because of class, creates a class of people that have no right to a good name because they have once been suspected by the police and where engaged in left-wing activities, that would then also imply any other activities that are dubious to the police for any reason. I am not saying that I was engaged in left-wing activities or any other political activities. Indeed the case law quoted compares me to convicted criminals, one person of dubious immigrant status and large scale financiers of Al-Qaeda. It is very concerning that left-wing bloggers like Osler can take it up as they did and  get it sanctioned by a court of law.  Yet again, I was never convicted of any crime, never listed by the German government for supporting terrorist, never on any wanted list. Indeed the German Attorney General attested in a letter  that I was never, not even remotely suspected of being connected to RAF or Baader-Meinhof terrorist and the Germans happily employed me for carrying out sensitive governmental work and they never discriminated me in any way in terms of employment after the arrest episode. They paid me full compensation and I could get on with my life, despite the Der Spiegel article that, at the time rotted in the cellars. The discrimination only started here in the UK.

It is more than dubious that the German authorities knew full well the background of events that led to my arrest yet I had never been discriminated in Germany over it but am being discriminated in the UK when I am now a British citizen and Labour bloggers and also Private Eye took up the issue when Germans themselves never showed any interest in the matter. The BBC German service was very happy to employ me in 1977.

I am still hopeful that there is some integrity and common sense left in the High Court and can’t wait to file my appeal in the hope that I can turn that situation around for the good of us all.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: