French judge agrees with me

I wish I would have had this nice French judge in my libel cases against Gray, Hilton and others because this beautiful judge ruled that a French blogger had to pay damages to a restaurant, after posting a hugely negative blog title, which had great prominence in Google searches. The judge obviously thought that just the negative title was able to bring the restaurant into disrepute and put people off from going there.

This was an important point in my case in that I argued that people just do not have the time to follow up each headline and cannot read whole articles to find somewhere at the bottom the explanation for a sensational headline.

But this judge at least agrees with me that high ranking Google search results can do huge damage just from the headline. Kiss him. Caroline Doudet was ordered to amend a post about restaurant II Giardino.  Article link.

In Britain a person is expected to read each and every article they come across just to find out the facts, if they are attracted by a particular headline. It is quite impossible already to even have the time to read the small print on contracts or other important information as there is so much of it about.

Miliband sees my point on publishing

Labour has now experienced first-hand how publishers character assassinations can ruin someone’s public profile completely. Reason, political tendencies are being created by denouncing a person’s character using political rhetoric. BBC has produced several articles about this, see one link here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24361040

However it was Labour’s own strategy to use those denunciations whilst Brown and McBride worked together. Indeed David Osler, John Gray and others, used the tactics to smear me publicly and I lost a libel case due to the fact that high-profile publisher Iain Dale, started to collect funds and several friends of the defendants used a Conservative lawyer to produce mostly falsified evidence in court. The court was of course only too glad to accept the evidence because it helped to protect the British flagship publisher Der Spiegel.

But one of the defendant’s ally, namely Iain Dale is already falling victim to his own bad character. He recently assaulted a peaceful protester and got a caution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24285711

Justice Eady, the truth is still waiting

I have now suffered several, in my view botched judgements that I had to endure simply because in civil law I am not entitled to legal representation. The case involves an originally British publisher, Der Spiegel and an employee of a Spiegel subsidiary, Lloyds List, which now bought into Der Spiegel. Mr Osler is extremely left-wing and supports all sorts of left-wing groups from Anarchists to Communists. He works in Lloyds list especially on the pirate issue, e.g. Somalis hijacking British ships. Of course several British women have become victims of Somali terrorist activity recently.

Justice Eady found for Der Spiegel, found for Mr Osler and found for all the other defendants involved in the UK left-wing Labour movement. They were spurred on by a member of the Conservative Party who volunteered, without being forced to in any way, to defend Mr Osler, whose defence then benefitted the other attached defendants. British law was so pleased with the performance of Mr Dougans that he became Assistant Solicitor of the Year, that is how the British reward those who work in the best interst of their country. Mr Hilton of course was supported by the big and rich Gay Support Network as he is an admitted and known Homosexual. But still all the Britishness and Gayness doesn’t allow a court to find wrongly on the evidence.

So, yes I am a German immigrant, now in possession of a British passport and I dared to attack the former Axel Springer empire over one of their publications. Of course one needs to know that Springer was implanted on Germany after World War II to dismantle the Hitler propaganda machine.

Why was I picked on by Springer? It is not known.  Tthe reason why I was arrested can be seen from these documents here, which are from the German Prosecutor from the 70s and 80s. There are 3 documents, all of which are translated. It is more than clear from the documents that I was arrested in line with an investigation against a Wilhelm Boenninger whom I do not know and who, according to my research, is never named in connection with any Baader-Meinhof activities anywhere on the net. There are a vast number of Internet pages, which list known BM or RAF associates. That name is not there, neither is mine. I never met a man called Wilhelm Boenninger and assume it is a case of mistaken identity. See letter from 12 March 1980, Ref 8 Js 500/75. I then was compensated for false arrest and the false imprisonment suffered See letter from 16 March 1978, ref 4StR Es 158/77. Also enclosed and then I received a letter from the German authorities certifying that I was never, not even remotely under suspicion of RAF association. See the underlined word on the bottom of page 1, letter dated 10 April 1980 Ref 1BJs 93/77.

Yet Mr Justice Eady felt fit to belief the palaver of Mr Osler, who argued that all arrests in the 70s in Germany must have to do with the Baader-Meinhof Group. The British publication machinery, including the BBC spread rumours that in Germany up to 35% of the population were in active support of the Baader-Meinhof group, which is a statistic that is very hard to belief. It is false and mere rubbish. You must imagine that if 35% of the population were in support of something then every 3rd or 4th person you would meet in the street would be involved into a criminal gang and actively supporting them. That is practically unthinkable and cannot be supported in any rational argument.  Apparently there is no broadly conducted survey that could support such a statistic, a survey that would have been conducted in Germany itself, asking ordinary German citizens and not just the demonstrating student minority that is so readily portrait on UK websites.

It simply pleases the British mentality to think that the Germans were broadly in support of Baader-Meinhof but that is the reason for Justice Eady’s judgment against me. The fact is that not anywhere in any official paperwork available from 1975 – 1980, not anywhere is there any mention of any political orientation. There is no way that anybody could come along and reasonably argue that any arrest that took place in Germany in the 70s, must have taken place because of Baader-Meinhof activities. Especially also not as at that time Germany did not know a Terrorism clause within Criminal law. A terrorism clause was added in late 1976. It was Der Spiegel that couched my arrest in an article about Baader-Meinhof and Eady J cleared Der Spiegel of publication  in the UK  during my case against Der Spiegel when later he accepted doctored evidence from Osler that it had been published. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Osler seems to be the babe of the court. He works for Lloyds List the subsidiary of Der Spiegel and in particular mostly on the Somali Pirate issues. Several women were kidnapped by Somali pirates recently. Judith Tebbutt, a disabled women, was snatched, her wheelchair left behind, her husband murdered.

The Paragraph 129 as it was in use then was so wide, that anybody would be arrested within it, including Travellers, religious sects like the The Church of Scientology and all would be accused of potentially wanting to throw over the German state and be potential terrorists, there was no actual proof needed for such an accusation. That was the climate under which arrests took place in Germany in 1975. It would be unthinkable today that this could happen with the Human Rights Act in place. It was plain and simply state persecution that allowed the imprisonment of indiscriminate amounts of people so that the state could weed out undesirables and collect information from people. Thousands fell victim to this.

There is no way, that I was ever assumed to be in touch with the RAF or Baader-Meinhof, there is no proof that the state even sought it was possible. The letters proof it, one even says, that I was never, not even remotely under such suspicion.

Not only did Eady J support the dismissal of my case because he thought it was an abuse of process because the difference between a compensated criminal arrest and compensated Baader-Meinhof arrest is too small, he actively supported in his judgement the notion that my arrest must have been for left-wing activities, for which there is no proof available at all. Not in any letter from the German authorities is this actually supported. I protested about this rigorously during the draft-judgement state but Justice Eady knows that without that left-wing element, his judgement cannot stand, and so he put it in just to make it work.

Justice Eady decided to please Der Spiegel, to please the left-wing Lloyds List employee. Why? Probably its a racist and sexist motivated judgement, that might also have religious grounds. What the British have established to be an anti Hitler propaganda tool, has turned into a pro-British propaganda tool and bends facts to please the British instead. Mr Osler later posted on Mr Gray’s blog, that I was defeated just like the Germans in World War II and the police promptly allocated a crime number for that posting but refrains to prosecute because the fine they could achieve would not exceed £50.

Of course I think sexism plays a big role. I am a single women, not associated with the typically important English male or even female (that if I was a Lesbian, which I am not). Many nasty posts have been produced during the course of the court case, mainly from men with revolting comments, that even one female high court judge remarked upon and then Mr Osler dropped his claim for costs. Unfortunately distasteful sexual comments were all over the Internet on this case.

Unfortunately for me, the whole justice system in Europe is now so impenetrable, that the single judges in the European Court of Human Rights also just tick off applications by unrepresented applicants as not being admissible, like they do in 95% of the cases. They cherry pick cases to hear and mine was not there.

The truth on my cases is still outstanding and I feel I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  It is my opinion and I have Freedom of Expression.

One recent reader comments that the court must have been listening to the case for so long to cash in on the payments from the state, which covered the costs for my applications because they need the money. That does not please the British Tax Payer.

I still belief and think I am correct in doing so, that there is a considerable difference in a general arrest and an arrest with specific suspicions of supporting and sympathising with a mayor terrorist group, who solely work from an illegal underground network. That is what the posts implied. Even in Germany the authorities did put such specific accusations in their arrest warrants, but not in mine, which was jointly with one other person, who also never was associated with known terrorists. I am glad to have been cleared of BM involvement, even with the British judgements, yet I was still made to loose the cases.

I shall add links to this shortly and further docs to download as proof

avoiding left-wing radicalisation

I think I did a splendid job in the way that I handled the left-wing extremism propaganda about me that was spurted about by Lead Councillor Francis in 2007, who wanted to brand me an extremist. In fact I think that I had joined the Respect Party for a short while helped to lead to their demise because my public denunciation of that party afterwards helped people to turn away from it. I openly encouraged that people join the Conservative Party at that time.

What in fact happened is that certain members of the Labour Party tried to create a left-wing icon, the left-over from the German Baader-Meinhof terrorist days that joined the Respect Party were their headlines and that of course fired up the radical elements in the community who probably already rubbed their hands at the prospect of more left-wing extremism in the community.

It was irresponsible from Osler and John Gray how they reported about me, in blogs they promised to re-publish should I lose my appeal. I am writing this now to counter-act any eventual re-publication. What Osler and Gray should have told people that the law in Germany in 1975 was not as the law is today in England under the current Human Rights legislation. Arrests that took place in Germany in 1975 would be against the law today and illegal internment.

Especially as I have been working with the local police since years and actually once appeared as a prosecution witness for them, then founded a Neighbourhood Watch and got support from the police for it, must make it clear to anyone that the police are hardly likely to work with individuals that pose a threat to law and order and/or have a dodgy past. I think that is what John Gray and David Osler tried to imply and I am still on the case so to speak.

I think it was correct to take the local problem as it was and avert more damage as had already been done by the publications of Osler, Gray, Hilton and in effect also Councillor Francis with his letters to the East London Advertiser.

I find it always really concerning that the Labour party manage to warn of others who are left-wing yet they themselves encouraged Respect members to join their ranks. In fact Mr Biggs himself stood up in defence of Mr Galloway during the Mayoral elections for London when I was busy drumming up support for Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson won, despite all the Labour lies.

I think any responsible resident cannot ignore the threat that left-wing extremism poses to the community and just ignoring it is just not enough. During the last general elections I had scores of Respect members knocking on my door, begging for a vote, when again I turned away and supported the Conservative Party.

I have never been left-wing or extremist in my life, yet there are some who wish to purport that impression, yet I always tell others not to fall for the lies. I think we have come to a good consensus in Tower Hamlets that we need a peaceful coexistence of all residents and have seen off the threat from the EDL and Islamist extremists. The Respect party got wiped from the map and we saw an increase of Muslims in the mainstream parties, especially the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour.

I think we can all say well done to ourselves and our neighbours and hope that we can keep up the good work for the betterment of our communities.

I continue to work as Neighbourhood Watch coordinator, and the local Safer Neighbourhood Police  and sit on the Police and Community Safety Board in Tower Hamlets and we had a splendid meeting only last week with the wonderful input of the Young Mayor of Tower Hamlets.

I have always supported good relations with the local police and in fact once supported a case they brought against a local prowler as prosecution witness. When do these warmongers like Osler, Gray and others finally realise that there is no point telling people of 35-year-old closed matters, when the very people who are in the forefront in the fight of terrorism and crime have a closed working relationship with me on a voluntary basis and they should know of any important issues. It would have been much more useful had Mr Gray and Osler and Hilton encouraged support for my local Safer Neighbourhood Work instead of trying to focus in on some old and forgotten stuff that has long been shredded by the German authorities and buried.

The flirtation with left-wing radicalism that some left-wingers propagate under the mantle of public interest does more harm than good and we have to try and avert the damage done by irresponsible publications such as they come from Mr Osler and Mr Gray.

A surprising outcome

My appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Stadlen against the Kaschke v Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB), decision was declared as totally without merit. Well that might be good as the court at least gives my case some credit. So the Court of Appeal has refused to re-consider the decision in the Light of Striking out the claim either in terms of publication or merit of the claim itself in terms of value.

I just had those news from Mr Dougans who got it from the Court of Appeal so he says, though the official website results do not show it yet. 10:35.

Even though I made the decision mainly over the costs order against me that followed, it is good in terms of that the Court of Appeal doesn’t feel that the decision could have included a strike out, as it was intended by Justice Eady when he gave permission to appeal to Mr Hilton.

At the worst case scenario the Court of Appeal could have heard the Appeal and allowing counter appeals and deciding that Mr Justice Stadlen should have dismissed the case there and then. But another possibility is that the court declares the application for permission to appeal the Hilton ruling as totally without merit because the case had been struck out by now. Another fine way to get around another determination of the Regulation 19 issue. I doubt there is someone in that court that would know how to do it properly. They are just trying to avoid the issue, lol.

Even if I win this case I will write to Strasbourg for an opinion on the merits of the analysis with regards to the E-Commerce Regulations, as I am interested in that subject.

Unfortunately I feel very much discriminated against in the court, compared to the former Defendants I was always asked to proof treble strong what I tried to achieve whilst the court always held in favour of the Defendants from the start. I felt very much excluded and forced into the outsider position, in which I still am. You can see if you read the judgments, they are favourable to the Defendants, they promise them victory and they discriminate against Freedom of Association issues. I wondered why Justice Stadlen mentioned my Respect membership as if it was the last party I belonged to and he makes it look like he uses that as reason to justify the bloggers publications about me. He wrote I am a member of the Respect Party when I became a member of the Conservatives on 11.9.2007. I think this was done with intent to make the judgment more convincing and condemning.

Yet that can only come from someone who is prohibited in discriminating against people for certain associations.

I personally have an interest and do research in political development and have done so for a while. I have started to write a book on the subject as well but had no time to come anywhere near completion.

I think any trained lawyer can see the mistakes in the judgments, the parts and quotes that have been used out of context to decide in the favour of the former Defendants. But not even the best arguments will help if the court is decidedly against me. Mr Justice Eady started it off basing his judgment on pure assumptions and case law like Godfrey v Demon, for witness statements being struck out if the publication cannot be proven, Stern v Piper for the repetition rule have all been ignored to concoct some rulings that are entirely bizarre.  I can see the threat in all judgments that strike out are based on an assumption of left-wing activities and try to justify the allegations, but that is strictly speaking against the rules of the European Court of Human Rights.

A lot of the case-law in the latest Stadlen judgment has been taken out of context. The court tries to misconstrue quotes from other authorities and in particular Burstein, Lord Denning made some very good remarks about admissibility of character evidence but it was all dependant on justification and or properly before a jury. Whereby properly before a jury actually means before a jury and not assuming it is before a jury and deciding what that assumed jury might decide.

I think it is too easy for a court to say, you are not going to get much damages, as that is a purely relative and subjective impression.  This rule can be used on anyone the court doesn’t like or wants to push out in favour of a Defendant. This rule is open to abuse.

I can only continue to persevere because that is what the European court rules expect me to do.  I think I suffer a considerable miscarriage of justice.  I run against a wall of consented ignorance and condemnation towards me and wonder whether it is partly because of my German origin.

My learned friends!

My confidence is rising, even though I am not on a Mission from God, I have seen the light. I am now looking forward to the appeal procedure because I feel I have some very good arguments in support of my case. May any judge find what they feel fit to find, it is their decision in the end, that is the decision that sticks with them forever. It is a free world, isn’t it just.

Just a secret, my Reverend tells me each and every week to do God’s work in the coming week. Ah. So I shall.

Dougans’ terrible legacy

This entry is corrected on 29.7.10 at 13:30

 BryanCave puts the story on their own corporate website. They also speak of the case being struck out for abuse of process but the judge has explicitly said in his judgment that he doesn’t strike it out as abuse of process. See quote here again:  

“62………

Ms Kaschke entertains a genuine sense of grievance at having been incorrectly linked to the Baader-Meinhof gang in the sense of it having been stated that she was arrested on suspicion of being a member of it. Both Eady J and I have found that in circumstances where in each case it was made clear in the relevant article that she was not convicted and received compensation for wrongful imprisonment and where in each case the defendant(s) openly acknowledge that they were not suggesting that there was any underlying truth in the conduct of which she was suspected and where she has herself admitted that she was arrested on suspicion of membership of a criminal gang with terrorist aims she is unlikely to recover more than very modest damages. Given that I have held that the claim in this action should be struck out because in effect the game is not worth the candle, it does not seem to me to add anything to hold that the action is in addition an abuse of process on the separate ground that Eady J has reached a similar conclusion in the Osler action. ”

This is what BryanCave wrote on their website: “In a decision handed down by the High Court on July 23, Mr. Justice Stadlen ruled in favor of Bryan Cave client Alex Hilton, a well-known blogger and Labour Party activist. London Associate Robert Dougans represented Hilton, who was defending a libel claim brought against him by East London political activist Johanna Kaschke. Dougans also acted as the advocate at the hearing before Mr. Justice Stadlen, who ruled that Kaschke’s claim was an abuse of process and should be struck out.”

I have had, in the meantime, e-mails to correct me and it is a fact that the Judgment in paragraphs 21 and 41 rules that the case is struck out as abuse of process.

I do not think that this should be like that because what this judgment says, it says, that mud sticks and once you had mud on your sleeve you will never be able to wash it off.

In the terms of the abuse of process I do not agree that this is a correct way to dispose of the action.  I shall argue that point further at the permission to appeal procedure. I fail to understand how accusation by a government that were made in a different jurisdiction, under legislation that at not compatible with today’s legislation can have an impact on the person’s good character when that person never did anything wrong in any case.

But that just shows the kind of man Robert Dougans is, he is not exactly a Libertarian. Judge for yourself.  BryanCave. On that note the judge remarked how odd it is that Dougans claimed more expenses for his assistant female assistant than for himself.

You can see that it is permitted for English lawyers to bully you on ancient  facts. After all Dougans is a member of the English establishment now and is seen as practically infallible.

Looking at the quotes above, that rests on some alleged admittance on my part. I am absolutely not sure where I am supposed to have admitted something and in what context but it shows that alleged words are held strictly against me but are easily misinterpreted by Dougans and that’s OK then.

Further in respect of Fair Trial, we can see from BryanCave website that it took more than 5 lawyers to bring me down and previously Hilton had the assistance even from 2 other firms and Mr Nicklin, and as said Waterfront Partnership and MLS Chase Solicitors.  I quote from the BryanCave website:

“This victory was a team effort. Bryan Cave London office trainee Shamila Ashiq assisted in the preparation of this case and at the hearing. The renowned libel specialist William McCormick QC of Ely Place Chambers helped develop the successful arguments. Further thanks go to David Allen Green, of counsel at Preiskel & Co. and writer of the Jack of Kent blog, and to Joel Bennathan QC who offered to represent Hilton at trial, should it have been necessary, on a pro bono basis.”

I think the judgment is dodgy to be based on one sentence that is taken out of context. I shall appeal that. Mary Honeyball and the lawyers are proud that it took them over 2 years to get a litigant in person down and in total 5 law firms, 1 barrister and several law students and assistants.

There is a significant chance that there was a misinterpretation of the law, namely the alleged admittance as “quoted above”, is related to a charge that was brought under laws as they were in 1975 in Germany, laws that are incompatible with today’s Human Rights Act. Today such charges could not be brought against a person with the same set of circumstances. Yet the Defendants and the court make it sound as if such charges could be brought today under today’s laws. So that is an avenue to explore for me, and I am open about this because I am not the sort of person that throws in last-minute arguments as the bunch of lawyers for Mr Hilton did it with me.

The bad character of English law

I think the interim judgment of Medical Justice v SSHD shows the bad character of English law. How foreigners that do not speak the English language properly are deprived of Access to Justice and my own experience in that field shows they are given papers to sign that they cannot read or not understand the meaning. of. I think we all agree that immigration is a problem, that too many immigrants are not good but what I would never want to tolerate is if immigrants are exploited because they do not speak the language properly. And even if they speak the language sometimes when we are under stress our language fails us. People are protected against the under the Human Rights article, “No Justice without law”

This is exactly what happened in my case and how it has been applied in Stadlen J’s judgment. This article in the New Statesman online is the culmination of Bad Taste and shows how the English amuse themselves with unsuspecting foreigners who do not understand the English language properly at times and especially not when under stress.

You go to another country, you want to buy something in a shop, you think you ask for a bar of soap and instead you say without realising: “You have got ugly green spots on your face”. You then do not understand why you are getting punched in the face. That is what happened to me in my legal cases in comparison. Yet this article in the New Statesman shows how the British mercilessly exploit the misgivings of immigrant’s language problems for their own ends.  It is further very disappointing that Stadlen J fed the frenzy of the Labour Party supporters of Mr Gray and Hilton and emphasized the mistake to hold it against me without sufficient sympathy.

It was on 9 July 2010 for the first time that Stadlen J told me how the court perceives the case in that they look at 2 meanings in comparison to each other, which are:

(1) being arrested on suspicion of being a member of Baader-Meinhof, the terrorist group that carried out bombings, robberies and murder (the meaning on which she is seeking vindication by means of this claim for libel), and

(2) being accused of being a member of a criminal gang with the aim to commit terrorist offences (a statement which the Claimant herself adopts as the position).

Master Rose then gave the parties the opportunity to apply to have the case struck out by August 2008. Nobody applied. Yet the New Statesman, rather foolishly helps the “Defendants” to conceal the fact that they did not apply by August 2008 and instead falsely proclaims that the English libel laws are at fault. I think that reporter needs sacking, what an idiot. Of course Mary Honeyball, Labour MEP, promotes the same kind of rubbish, that is intended to falsify the readers’ impression of what the case is about and tries to blame the libel laws instead of putting the correct picture. More Labour lies then, nothing new.

Furthermore the definition I gave was given, not knowing how it is understood in English law, I was under severe stress and did not know the meaning myself. It was a language problem.  It was a problem of having to research legal matters of how they were in Germany in 1975 and compare it to today’s English laws and Human Rights laws and I did not understand that at the time neither. It was a very specialised subject, that should allow under the Limitation Act and the Defamation Act a prolonged period. What the judge does is take what I wrote on the spur of a moment and says that emphasizes the nature of the case.

Master Rose did his best to make something of the case and gave lots of orders to supply further statements to the meanings. And I said to Stadlen J I cannot understand how the court can ignore that fact and does not pay attention to the work Master Rose did in this respect. I think it is rather nasty towards Master Rose, who is  a very sweet and traditional English gentleman. There is nothing wrong with Master Rose’s meaning of the case (1), there is however something wrong in the way I made a comment(2), it is simply mistaken. Take into consideration that I am also very short-sighted.

Basically the definition as you can see it above puts the matter into a completely wrong light. I have made a language mistake and the court did not make me aware of this, that just shows how people who have problems with language are exploited in this country.

I tried my best to explain the situation to Stadlen J, worked feverishly all weekend between 9 and 12 July 2010 and Stadlen J, who is a stickler for the rules, and doesn’t think that litigants in person, whether they speak the language properly or not, should be given any credit on that account, refused to accept my submissions. He mocked me for not being able to present my case as well as it would be presented with a barrister. What’s even worst the Labour party spectators enjoyed themselves on that point. Well, that is broadly the case I shall make in my permission to appeal application.  I think it’s basically rotten to the core that an English court doesn’t give people the benefit of the doubt, when I do my best to work for the Home Office, free of charge, have never broken the law and because I had been put under severe stress by the publications, and ended up with a mental block because of it, the English court holds that against me as well. That in my view shows the bad character of English law, how a number of English gentlemen can amuse themselves with something like that over 2 years, is rather simplistic isn’t it just.

I am not quite sure how that harshness in my case fits in with Stadlen J’s description in the Daily Mail where he is portrait as modelling himself on his mother, who was a fearless champion of the underdog.  I  quote the whole paragraph at the end of that long article  “The tales of hardship clearly hit the mark with Mr Justice Stadlen. Made a judge in 2007, as a barrister he earned in excess of £1million-a-year. The son of a classical musician, he has spoken of how his mother, ‘a fearless champion of the underdog’, has been the most influential person in his life”.

Well that underdog doesn’t extend to immigrants that’s for sure.

Further correction. The statement as quoted in (2) above was not even in the claim or the pleadings, I’m not sure where Dougans got it from ( I have to go through the judgment properly) but it is used to be held against me, when I think it can only be evidence of what I wrote at a time under stress and not be used as bad character evidence against me.

Labour MEP promotes restricting Human Rights

double standards One law for us, one law for others

 

I have become aware that there is a considerable opposition to the Human Rights legislature brought to us on compliments of the EU but that is usually opposed by the right-wing lobby and not the middle to left ground. 

Yet because some Labour bloggers are in the dock, or have been in the dock, subject to appeal, Labour’s MEP makes a U-turn on Human Rights and declares them a nuisance. 

She wants less not more opportunity for people to protect their right to a good name. There is a lobby on the Internet, that supports her but that is only composed of those people who actively support irresponsible blogging. I have not heard one Human Rights organisation support those views. 

Again, as I commented previously about Mrs Honeyball, it is disappointing that the lady doesn’t look further than free speech, when there are a number of very important other Human Rights issues at stake, issues I would expect any MEP to take into consideration. It is not just a matter of libel laws but a matter of equal rights on legal representation. Mrs Honeyball condones it that Mr Justice Stadlen found that people on income support have no right to bring libel cases and therefore are without protection of their good name. What about Right of a Fair Hearing Article 6, Mrs Honeyball, or does the lady only believe in Human Rights when its nothing to do with a Labour Party member?
I reckon another specialist libel lawyer could have taken Mr Dougans’ argument to the judge and flashed both Mr Dougans and his arguments of course. Mrs Honeyball puts the Labour blogger win, down to specialist libel lawyers arguments but this is not so, it is that I was not represented against a host of lawyers and Mary Honeyball should not support it that some people have no right to legal representation and remain without professional help and can get exploited by lawyers.
It is awful that a Labour Party MEP gets involved in a case that involves Labour Party bloggers. The least one could expect from a politician that they stay neutral in cases of that sort.
It is not that simple, as just to blame the libel laws and everything is going to be alright. Mrs Honeyball seems to want one law for bloggers and another law for the rest of us, I do not agree that this would be a desirable solution. Mrs Honeyball further implies that legal action should not be brought at all in some cases, trying to restrict the indivisual’s ability to protect their good name. Another reason not to vote Labour. 

I think Mary Honeyball should step down as she has not got a clue what she is doing.

Climb every mountain

that is the implication of Mr Justice ‘s  judgment, that I can still continue the path of righteousness but it is a very steep mountain to climb.

Yet are the hills still alive in English Justice? I certainly hope so because if they aren’t then there is a lot of dead wood on the mountain in England.

It is very worrying though that the court has already used one of my judgments to throw out another case and that of a woman at that. Knowing that this case is up for permission to appeal the court is very hasty to apply its new-found resolution strategy.

I am always positive and as such, since I have gotten rid of my frustrations taken a deep breath and noticed that I do not have a bad case but I simply have a badly pleaded case.

There is a remedy and that is to apply to amend the pleadings and particulars of claim. I wonder whether the Appeal Court judge can resists the temptation to refuse a drop-dead-gorgeous pleading.  It really is a matter whether the hills of English Justice are still alive or does it suffer from Rigor Mortis, to not let anybody up that mountain once made a mistake.

I was a bit worried when Justice Stadlen proclaimed that I would be unable to go through a jury trial because I am too slow and a litigant in person could not cope with that. Well that is an attitude that could have come from my husband who had a similar view to women in general and was very dismissive of inventive thinking.  We can divorce a husband but we can’t divorce a judge. There are many more where he came from in any case. So its a matter of arguing and convincing with a steady pace. To say it with the words of Joan Amatrading, I am not in love but I’m open to persuasion of the legal ideas of course, I hope that this is what the judge will think.

Joan Amatrading, singer of I am not in love but I'm open to persuasion

Yet looking at the situation from Mr Gray’s point of view, if the case went to trial and it wasn’t a jury trial then he would have grounds to go to Strasbourg if he lost. There, we now see the shortcomings of the Access to Justice Act, that yes, we want to allow litigants in person to bring Defamation Claims, but no, they can’t really have a jury trial. I don’t think that is going to work. I am going to apply for a Declaration of Compatibility. My second attempt to query the judicial system, since my application for Judicial Review on the matter failed, currently also before the Strasbourg court administrator.

I think it would be best all around if we could resolve the matter on the claims before the court because otherwise we open the gates for filing future claims on old matters just with different pleadings. I think that Hilton, Osler and Gray should have allowed me to amend the pleadings, now that I have finally caught up to the legal side of law as it was in Germany in 1975 and able to compare that to today’s Human Rights Act.  Because, frankly speaking, if the Court of Appeal now allows me to amend my pleadings and I win the case, then the Defendants will have to pay a much higher bill but also if the court does not allow me to amend then we will see more action both in Europe and in England.

So the English should not complain about the high EU contributions they have to pay as that is what much of the money to Europe goes on, to maintain the European Court of Human Rights amongst other things.

Frankly matter of being able to pay costs has been decided against me whilst the Defendant’s cashflow is zero too, they could not pay costs if they had to but the court has never even put them into the awkward position, isn’t that nice of the court.

Is there a general rule in English Justice that says, whoever gets the first costs against them is going to lose the case? I think the court should not give preference to Gray, Hilton and Osler just because they are young and middle-aged men who have better things to do than come to court and leave me with all the frustration and paperwork, to file with Strasbourg and then having to wait for years before I can get my costs back. The approach should be to resolve this matter now because the solution to the problem as it is now is unsatisfactory in so far as a publication is declared as untrue but the publisher has not been banned from re-publication. I do have a case but it is badly pleaded. I could get damages but because of the bad pleadings the damages are low. What does that mean to the rest of the world?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,047 hits
%d bloggers like this: