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.

Coppers narks

I find it quite amazing that Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses relieved the media of their obligation to supply essential evidence that can help prosecute criminals. The media is worried they might be seen as coppers narks.

Why would the media not want to assist in the solving of crime? why would the media be getting this value free area, in which they can witness crime but do not have to help solve it?

Ordinary residents and businesses are very keen to assist the police by giving information if they can. We hear the appeals via Crime Stoppers, Crime Watch. Every country has crime and wanted criminals bulletins. The recent riots saw the pictures of wanted rioters distributed everywhere.

The ruling of Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses could now prompt mainstream publishers to refuse showing wanted posters of criminals because they could be seen as coppers narks.

What is in fact the benefit for society if people can report about crime and have evidence of it but have no obligation to give information about the crime to police? There is no value on that at all. We do not benefit from it that we can see ongoing crime, but we only benefit if we see a reduction in crime.

I have long had quarrels with Mr Justice Eady and the High Court myself, who has a strange idea of citizenship and freedom of the press in general. What this judgement actually promotes is crime and it helps the press be a sensationalist instrument that shows crime to sell papers and sell Internet publications on the basis of showing these sensationalist breakages of the law and it suspends their normal citizen duty to help solve crime. That is a completely and utterly ridiculous decision.

continued from before

Or lets say a reporter watches an old age pensioner being mugged and assaulted in the street, he takes photos and only shows the one where the mugger’s face is unrecognisable; this ruling of Mr Justice Eady will sanction it that the reporter can withhold the photos that show the face of the criminal. The paper can then run a story, the brutal face of crime in the UK, police unable to stem the tide of crime or something along those lines.

It is scary and frightening how both the current government and the judges at the high court systematically undermine the police in their duties. But strangely enough, they haunt any publisher that cooperates with the police like News International did (at least so I assume, but don’t quote me on that). It seems even more strange that the High Court and Mr Justice Eady of course wrote a blank cheque to Der Spiegel when I complaint about their reporting and laid open a lot of discrepancies in the law of data capture and publishing but that only News Corp. International get systematically haunted.

In my very personal view I think Mr Justice Eady is a first-class nerd.

A new iron curtain?

I suppose the title of my most previous post “A bad political strategy” could also head this one, which is about the Russian, Iranian and world political relationship.

Russia now refuses sanctions against Iran over the Iranian development of nuclear energy. The UN, in line with western expectations accuses Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. It all sounds like the run up to the next invasion of some eastern country by western and UN led forces.

Iran say they have a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but the West of course accuses them of wanting to make nuclear weapons. We had arguments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it led to the Iraq invasion and enquiries ever since. Iran has long been a thorn in the eyes of the western politicians, as it will not bow to pressure and is outspoken in opposition to all western policies. Israel has already vowed to invade Iran and attack them to destroy the nuclear power plants they have built or are about to build.

The Russian – Iranian allegiance makes this very interesting though in a dangerous sense.

Britain is at its best to seriously annoy the Russians though, which again draws a big international line across our world geography. Russian oligarch has won case against Russia in the case of murder allegations. Now has an active court case before the High Court, in particular Justice Eady, claiming billions from the owner of an English football club who happens to be Russian. So the Russians do not mind being part of our western world. Anybody really loves their footsie. The West however wants to see more submission to us in the political sense as well as the football club alone.

If Eady J now lets the Russian defector win against the Russian football club owner, there will be some serious thinking to do what can be done with the political headache that is about to become a giant migraine. Of course I said it before and say it again, the courts and in particular civil law is not the method to make politics but this is what is emerging. Judges make politics these days and it not only jeopardises the functionality of justice, it also can cause a war. Think about it. If Russian sides with Iran and the West attacks Iran and Russia is on their side, we have a big dangerous scenario.

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.

The dialectic of Justice

I am surprised that Mr Justice Eady made that judgment in the football privacy case after all the arguments I brought before the court in my own cases, which I lost. I provided the court with lots of evidences about how electronic communications and communications networks function and how users can be established and the arguments came that whatever was written was fair comment. I evidenced also and so did many before me that communications work on different channels (Lennox Lewis case), a bit like the old-fashioned village gossip really. Can anyone stop people from talking about something?

Word goes around and does not stop at certain borders but one should expect that facts stay facts really. It is not a question about the facts in the footballer case, which is different from my own cases. In my own cases the facts were disputed but this is not so in the footballer privacy case.

I heard only yesterday who that footballer allegedly was because it was on the BBC website and I usually only get wind of things once its on the BBC. The Scottish Herald argues that Scotland is not within English jurisdiction, quite right but why was that Injunction granted in the first place.

In my view its because justice always worked to defend the rich and those who can afford it even if it is a little bit silly. If it bothers someone really a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on it then justice will serve that person. Of course I also argued in my case about seeking Judicial Review that this principle “We are all the same under the law” was only invented so that the rich could be prosecuted for the same crimes as the poor but that was not properly digested by the court.

Especially in cases where there is no legal aid the courts are only willing to find for those who can afford the best lawyers for th longest amount of time and of course footballers can really spend the most money on anything.There is some very pungent case law that proves that cases were only continued because litigants could proof they can pay costs and those cases where then won by those who could afford to pay costs; the case of Prince Radu is the best example.

That is why this silly judgment came about that really doesn’t make sense especially not as the story seems to be true. How can anybody stop people from talking about something that is true?

I posted about this before, if people do not want people talking about their sexual behaviour they should simply not exercise that sexual behaviour. It is the oldest story on earth that the rich and famous always had “concubines” as they were called under the French royal courts. And it is a bit the same, isn’t it, that what the old Aristocrats did then the rich still do now. Who can blame the poor girls for wanting to be fancied by the rich? No one really can apart from the church.

The matter has by now become ridiculous and I am not about to make myself very popular with those who do not want to be able to look truth into the eye or have been made to believe that their case has really good merit because they could afford to pay justice to allow them to rule that make belief. That is really the danger, that if you can afford to pay for something then very powerful people will support you and you will only be shown the door by the poor masses who do what they always did, Gossip in one form or another.

The question arises should English justice really always serve the rich in civil cases or show more common sense and avoid making a few bucks out of some applications?

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.

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:  


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.

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?

False interpretations of the judgment

Already I am getting via my Google alert the links to the blogs that maliciously misinterpret the judgment in the Kaschke v Gray and Hilton action.      

In the blog Index on Censorship the article titled Bloggers’ victory: Gray Hilton libel case struck out, the comment posted on 23 July 2010 comments that the action had been struck out as abuse of process yet paragraph 62 of the judgment expressly states that the action was not struck out as abuse of process and I quote Mr Justice Stadlen:      

62………”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. ”      

As a mitigating circumstance for Index on Censorship however and oddly enough the judgment was not handed down during the hearing, at least not to me. I found it on the Bailii website on the evening of the 23 July 2010.     I must add that the judgment is contradictive in that the learned judge says in para 21 that the case is struck out for abuse of process, my apologies 


David Cameron is chatting at my table, it was a Conservative Women's dinner


The next incorrect assertions can be found both in the judgment and on Guido Fawkes’ blog. The judgment states on paragraph 6, that I left Labour in 2007 to join the Respect Party, but forgets to mention that my membership lasted only 4 months.  I have been asked already why the judgment gives the impression that I am still a member of the Respect Party and I can only explain it with that the judge wanted to show me in a false light.
and Guido Fawkes states that I am a very recent member of the Conservative Party. Very recent perhaps in the aspect of world history but in the time frame of this matter, I have not been a very recent member but been a member of the Conservative Party since 11 September 2007. the picture Guido shows has been taken on the evening of a dinner party with David Cameron, posh Hotel in Park Lane. I do not mind Guide using my picture for that post, it is fairly mellow compared to, definitely compared to the very nasty Osler blog.      

This Guido blog about me is quite funny and witty, one can only congratulate the writers of the comments for being linguistically advanced.      


The New Statesman      

I am particularly disappointed that a New Statesman blogger doesn’t want to understand the differences in German laws that happened there in 1975. George Eaton also falsely writes that as a “fact I was accused of membership in the Baader-Meinhof gang” (sic) when both Eady J and Stadlen J deny that this is so. The situation has left everybody in limbo. Why would the High Court judges see a necessity to distinguish between the different types of charges that Police made in Germany in 1975 but rule that there is not much to be gained. I think it is just a matter of bad pleadings and if pleadings were better I might be able to make a succesful claim.  I try the Court of Appeal route first because sorting this out in the first instance seems more sensible to me rather than file even more claims now.      

the bloggers and the courts want to prevent me from defending my reputation, so that readers can be deceived


It is I now who has to wear the black handkerchief around my mouth because what I wrote in a state of shock is now held against me. My freedom of expression has less value as those who write about me. That has  implications on the way the press can harvest writings of people who write things not quite correctly formulated or even if correctly formulated distort what is published and pretend they read something else. They did not even have to bring any printed proof of what they supposedly have read. But it is a fact that I wrote my pleadings under stress, without having been able to research the matter properly, without legal help and hence I now ask for permission to change my pleadings when the permission to appeal is granted, if ever. I am hoping though. Wish me luck. I have argued before the court that I suffered from a mental block about the matter and that is also official. I had no idea about the legal background of the situation as it was all a blur to me what was actually the law in Germany in 1975 and had to eventually come around to comparing Germany’s laws in 1975 to today’s Human Rights Act and find they are not at all compatible. But it is a problem with the Limitation Act that doesn’t allow enough time to study specialised matters. I also hope to get permission to overturn decisions on that point.
I’m afraid I do not have the time to even consider taking action against the New Statesman now but hopefully can make them look like brats by posting about it here. What is important, is that Strasbourg makes a distinction between “facts” and “value judgment” and neither Robert Dougans or Stadlen J looked at it from that perspective. I shall develop that thought because if you look what difference a value judgment makes as soon as a major terrorist group is concerned it does make sense that the judges make a distinction in the judgment. What so far commentators  have not mentioned is that I made the judge aware of the costs being levied against the UK if the case goes to Strasbourg if I win, especially on the value judgment argument. So he kept the costs low. Yet I try to avoid that and want to see if I can get some better clarity on the points of interest to us all.  It would be sad if English judges can prevent a person from bringing legal actions about untruth’s others publish, therefore deceive the reading public and call it freedom of expression when I am the victim of it all.     


Major commentators like the long-standing supporter of Alex Hilton, Iain Dale only manages to make a luke-warm and not very explicit comment about the case, but just asks for support. Support for what? He just mentions cause for concern, but concern for what? I would have expected better from Iain Dale, give as a bit more distinctive comment, what do you actually not like where is the definition of your concern? I know Iain Dale gave a very general witness statement about publication that is about as old as my heels on my oldest pair of shoes but that was about his only contribution so far. Nothing in there that we do not already know Iain.    


Up-date on 27 July 2010. Now even BryanCave puts the wrong end of 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………”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. ”   

But that just shows the kind of man Robert Dougans is, he twists words to interpret them in his favour and even puts that wrong representation to the public as true. 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.

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.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: