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.

Prison in lock-down

I find this story that a Serco run private prison is in lock-down quite interesting in a very personal way.

During my trial against Gray in particular Kaschke v Gray, Mr Gray’s most important argument was to say to judges that because I had been locked up for 23 hours per day, I must have been perceived as potentially a very dangerous prisoner. The judges throughout the high court accepted his argument.

Looking at this Serco prison, Thameside jail, it seems that locking up prisoners for that amount of time is merely a matter of prison management and cannot reflect on the status of the prisoner.

I was merely on remand in 1975 and found to be completely and totally not guilty of anything, yet prison authorities found it easier to put me in as isolated prisoner with 23 hour lock-up rather than let me mix with others.

This is yet another reason why the judgements of the High Court of Justice and all Justices finding on my cases is totally unacceptably flawed and should be struck out retrospectively.

It is quite obvious that the High Court was practically looking for reasons to strike my cases out and any reason was gladly accepted. Of course Mr Justice Eady was the leading judge in the proceedings against me who held these biased trials right from the start, to protect Der Spiegel.  That then rubbed off on the cases against Osler and Hilton too.

Wikileaks 70s revelations

Since in his judgement, the Honourable Mr Justice Eady suggested that I had been involved in left-wing activities in the 70s in Germany, an assumption I strongly denied, I now looked at this latest Wikileaks documents that publishes more than 1.7 million US diplomatic and intelligence reports from the 1970s.

Especially since I have shown a letter from the German Solicitor General that cleared be of any suspicion to do with German Baader-Meinhof terrorists, the English High Court still assumed that it must have been the case that I had been involved and suspected.

Very strange way of delivering justice and it reeks of complete and utter incompetence. But since I was unrepresented, I could not do much about it as they just wipe the floor with litigants in persons really.

Back to the Beginning. My thinking is that if I really would have been involved in concerning left-wing activities in Germany,the Americans would have gotten wind of this, so my name would also appear in their files.

Yes when I search those records on Wikileaks my name does not appear, which is I think further proof that Mr Justice Eady delivered a spoof judgement. They just could not stand the fact that a German immigrant women could win in an English High Court and defy the English system, could they!!!

No more plain sailing

I read with delight today that Abramowich won the action brought by Berezovsky whose streak of luck has finally run out. I am even more delighted to read the quotes about Mr Berezovky’s character that was delivered by Mrs Justice Gloster at the Commercial court.

I quote from a BBC article as her saying: “On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.”That was my impression as well when I sat in a day’s worth of proceedings that Mr Berezovsky then brought in libel and won with the assistance of Mr Justice Eady. Eady J of course likes transitory truths and flexible concepts about truth, as I felt it personally when he ruled over my libel cases against various publishers.

I have absolutely nothing to do with either Abramowich or Berezovsky but think that this ruling gives me a little bit of a break in that it throws some doubt over Justice Eady’s ability to properly judge people’s evidences when he allowed in my case doubtful and doctored evidences to happen to suit his purpose. It is gob-smacking stuff that Eady allowed an “inherently unreliable” witness to win a case, just as he allowed my opponents to win with dodgy evidence.

Of course I wrote about the case right at the beginning of it link to that story.

Press has become a loose canon

Whilst the BBC reports that the Lord Justice Leveson is ‘loading a gun’ at the press, I would say that the press has become a loose canon, a law onto itself and judging with aspects of their own morality.

Of course most frustrating for Justice Leveson is the fact that the press even leaked a confidential letter that was written to them as part of the enquiry process but was not meant for public discussion.

The press has become so detached from the normal process that they feel fit to judge and jury individuals, institutions, government and whatever takes their fancy. We now have a trinity of dispute; whilst previously we had a dispute between judges and government over who rules the roost, there is now a dispute between judges, government ministers and the press over who is better in making public opinion and telling us the difference between right and wrong, setting moral standards and putting across suggestions as to conduct and opinion.

I have felt how distorted justices can be by having seen how Justice Eady ruled on assumptions about what happened in Germany over 35 years ago, when all official documents of the period had been destroyed a long time ago. On his own assumptions he allowed the press to write what they liked because he assumed that I must have been involved in left-wing activities at some point in my life, when there is not one shred of proof that the police had any record of that at all.

Lord Justice Leveson now, I presume, finds along the lines of the previous enquiry that was done by a government white paper by Louise Casey, that found that since the 70s press reporting has deteriorated become distorted and is more sensationalist, distorting opinions and making opinions to suit any wanted political mood. Taking that in conjunction with a recent ruling that allows political elections to produce rogue leaflets during election periods, we see that the public is generally duped into voting for one side or another.

Nowadays the freedom of association is hugely lamed by that judgement of Mr Justice Eady, which made me lose a libel action on an assumption of left-wing association. If I now find that anyone person in a group that I participate in is connected to extreme views or activities on either side of the spectrum, I disassociate myself from the whole group. Often though one does not know what others do until the time of the reckoning comes, so how can individuals be blamed for the actions of others if they did not plan them outright?

For example you go to a party where Prince Harry turns up wearing a Nazi uniform or suddenly takes off his clothes, you are in the background of the picture, your life can be destroyed forever and the press is having a field day, by producing a guilt by association and Justice Eady’s ruling allows the press to associate you with all sorts of established radicals just because you accidentally moved once on the fringe of something that you weren’t really aware of.

What Justice Eady has produced is a “Guilt by Assumed Association“, which is taking guilt by association even a step further and Justice Easy allows the press to assume a guilt by association too. Justice Leveson should start by overturning rubbish judgments that distort the law and have been made in the past, which is what paved the way for the press to behave in the way they do now.

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

Hi, it is back on

You may have noticed that I took my blog off for a little while because I gotten threatening letters again from the lawyer because of my lost libel cases. Suddenly they remembered that I still owe them money. But having read an article last night to which I was alerted from a Facebook Friend, I think the legal action against me now has to be seen in a historic light. Please read the new page about the Rothchilds and I put that indirectly in the legal context of my cases. In such a way, that I wondered why the court found it so important to defend the Freedom of Speech of people who report wrongly and who work for a mainstream publisher. I wondered why one of the most prominent judges found it important to issue judgements that still falsify the context of my case. Because I was never arrested for left-wing activities, there is not a shred of proof for that assumption in Mr Justice Eady’s judgement.

I have provided many original German documents and none of them put me in any left-wing context.

I wondered why a Conservative Lawyer works for free to defend a left-wing radical and there is the connection, it is the bigger picture that is being defended here. Read on my new page who owns all the mayor publishing houses that tell us what to think day after day and make conclusions about the importance of Left-wing and Right-wing politics and politics in general. If you read the new page you will see that politics is merely a smoke screen that hides the more important factors away from us and is merely intended to keep us busy so that we do not think about the real facts that are important. Of course it is now also quite obvious that the ECHR only takes on cases that suit their political power-play and refuse all others including mine.

What is important now is to prevent any political or other upheavals that could disturb our quality of life. Prevent any future political movements that could bring harm to our population or criminal activities that disturb our peace. Because we little people are sick of suffering for the benefit of some powerful players.

British unable to agree on facts

The reporting about the recent riots here in the UK caused a lot of upset in certain political circles but mainly for David Cameron and his supporters, as today’s article in The Sun clearly shows. The Sun calls the reporting balanced between left and rabidly left whilst the BBC calls it just balanced. The PM is upset that the riots could have been blamed on cuts and or class inequality.

There we see the factual truth in all my arguments, I brought before the courts throughout my libel cases, namely that it is important to report on the facts. What we see in Britain today is, that everybody can report in a tainted fashion and report what they actually like. There is no restriction that could be enforced. Publishers are not required to seek approval of rioters before they write why they actually rioted. There is no legal requirement to hold a public opinion survey before opinion is published. There is no real basis for any allegations that the press or the BBC actually made why the riots took place.

It creates the typical English crazy situation whereby nobody really knows what’s going on, everybody says something else and nobody knows the real facts. I tried to establish some case-law that could make a rule that the media is at least required to base their assumptions on facts or else but that unfortunately could not be achieved here in the land of free speech.

But as we can see from the latest relations in the Gaddafi case, the security services themselves spread plenty of lies so who is Cameron actually blaming when his own governmental officers don’t tell the truth either?

The Freedom of Expression and Speech that is practised by the western press has become a farce in that one simply cannot belief any publication any longer, so what is the point in publishing any views or comments that are not based on hard evidence?

Since the 1970s the press reporting has rapidly deteriorated into plain assumptions and sensationalist palaver. Worst still the courts apply the libel definition to cases whereby the most expensive lawyers can be employed for the longest time to obtain a win over the other party. That’s justice for you. It seems the British only accept the type of truth that is good for political gain and economic influence instead of basing things on hard facts.

Are they regretting it yet?

I just wonder whether the UK legal system already starts to regret the fact that they let me lose my libel actions, which centred around the accuracy of reporting and failure to insist on accuracy may assist those wishing to promote terrorist violence.

So far we have seen a sharp increase in common violence. The type of civil unrest that ruled Germany during the 60s and 70s and that led to guerilla warfare and widespread conspiracies to defunct the state.

I think at one time the UK judiciary wished they had given me the win on my libel cases because it is important how articles are worded as not to inflict the hot-headed with silly ideas. I do not mean that we need to restrict freedom of expression and speech. I do not mean to say that the social media cannot be used to ask people to riot. I do belief that people have the right to organise a revolution by using social media.

What the essence of my case however was, it was that people cannot assume a revolutionary association where there was none, just to befriend the general public with the concept. What emerged after my case was a silly point of we English beaten the Germans once again but what has emerged now is a similar problem as the Germans had it in the latter end of the last century and the aftermath of that is yet to come.

Regardless of David Cameron’s promises that he is a Common Sense Conservative. I can see little evidence of that in what his first reactions to the riots had been.

This government is limping behind yet again, tries to make good on what is already bad and starts to reward the wrong-doers. There are relocations to the country for security risk people on tax payer’s expense. There is preferred job placements for offenders and drug addicts. So we are getting increasingly a work force that promotes law breakers and drug users and those who keep a clean lifestyle can happily retire on the dole.

It is very important to keep the media and communications channels in check and insist on accurate reporting in the press and on the world-wide web because inflicting grievous mental harm by publishers has long been ignored and this has now become too long.

I am not impressed by any proposals whether they are from Labour or from the Conservatives because both parties rely on funding from mayor commercial sources. That does not mean that I favour the Liberal Democrats either. I think that politics has failed itself and is unable to come forward with solutions that solves our domestic and international crisis.

All I am asking for is a systematic reconsideration of all policies and their health implications but not by using standardised rhetoric but by using real input without consideration whether it loses some industry money or not.

I still belief that had I been allowed to win my cases it would have laid an important corner-stone in publication law that could have been used to stop those wanting to incite violence on inaccurate information by flirting with terrorist concepts in their publications and using other people’s names for doing so without foundation.

Obviously the Norway Breivik activity must have put an important dampener on the Conservative – Labour relationship. During my libel case Labour relied heavily on Conservative Support just to get one over on the [former] Germans but Breivik has proven to the world that the Conservative mind really doesn’t care less about Labour at all and recent developments in politics proof that point too. UK law is immature and so are UK politicians, just thinking again that this Conservative cabinet is full of inexperienced policy makers.

The stupid thing about our democracy is that each government blames the previous ones for failings, what a lot of gutless behaviour that is. No wonder people stay at home at polling day.

court accepts family circumstances as excuse

I think it is quite remarkable how a court allowed a debtor by the name of Keith Harrison, to have 20k of debt written off because of family circumstance. Link Yet in the case of limitation periods, in my own case for example, the court did not accept any such human excuses at all.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: