That may be an idea, but I don't want to annoy this Solicitor as it would just give him more ammunition in Court, especially as I think he is unstable. The bank statement only show deposits and payments and most of those paying him money cannot be identified conclusively anyway. The solicitor claims that he has to give up on a project for which he claims he was a co-founder, so it's a pity that I did not find any payments to him for that project. The solicitor has even submitted details from his doctor's record which shows that he went to his doctor claiming anxiety. He apparently had certain blood tests done but he has not submitted those results. Nor has he submitted any opinion his doctor may have about his supposed anxiety. He has only submitted a copy of the doctor's notes which only include what the solicitor told the doctor about how he felt. He is probably anxious now given that he has sent me a copy of his bank statement and, despite three requests from him to delete that statement, I have not done so. I simply told him that that my new Solicitor will contact him in that respect.
It isn't the same John. The SRA has this function now. It is also a little known fact that you can complain direct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).Unlike the SRA, the SDT cannot investigate Solicitors but if you have a serious complaint you believe you can prove (based solely on evidence you can provide) and the SRA won't play ball (they are in work overload) then go direct to the SDT. It costs nothing. Most Solicitors are not even aware that someone can take a complaint direct to the SDT. For less serious complaints, such as failure to progress, failure to advise, insufficient costs information, overcharging etc. you can complain to the Legal Ombudsman. If fraud is involved, you can submit a complaint to the fraud section of the SRA. If you go to the Law Society with a complaint these days, they will merely refer to you to the SRA. They probably won't tell you about the Legal Ombudsman and they certainly won't mention the direct route to the SDT.
Well, the Court hearing by video link did not go ahead. The solicitor suing me did not agree with a Court Order that required him to arrange the video link for me. He felt the Court had made an 'obvious error' in ordering him to arrange and pay for that link. It now looks likely the case will be heard on 2 May by video link. At least I now have a reputable solicitor (that I used in back in 1997) and he is now rated in the Chambers directory as a 'Leading Individual'. I must admit I was happy with the service he provided to me back in 1997.
I hope to be back in my home before 18 May. The flood damage repair is all but complete. They just need to test electrics and fix a few snagging problems. I need to get a bed and some curtains. I still don't know full extent of prostate cancer as there have been delays getting a second MRI. At least an appointment for that has now been made.
Hope you have no more problems with your home Howerd, it will be good for you to get everything in place after all the upset.
My Solicitor is, in his own words, '"gobsmacked". I attended a hearing by videolink (as ordered by the Judge) as a litigant in person, but the new Judge appointed to the case refused to hear the case by videolink. In other words, the case went ahead in my absence and with only the Claimant being heard at Court. The Claimant duly won the case, although I am at liberty to challenge within 14 days of receipt of the Order, which I received today. I don't even know if the Judge considered my evidence and the Claimant is remaining silent on what happened at Court; he won't enter into any dialogue at all.
Let me get this straight, Howerd, this case was heard in an English Court of Law and not in a Filipino court? On what grounds did the (new) Judge refuse to hear the case via videolink when that was the mechanism ordered by his predecessor? I wonder if the Judge and your adversary are brother Masons ...
Yes this was in a County Court in London. No explanation from the Court yet, but it seems the new Judge would not accept the doctor's letter I sent to the court as sufficient evidence that I could not attend court. But the court had previously accepted that as evidence and ordered I attend by video conference. It is no different to me being barred entrance at the court room door and the case being heard with the claimant presenting his evidence and me unable to say or observe anything. My solicitor says he has never heard of this happening before. Not only that, but the Judge has ordered I sign a statement acknowledging I am the author of a "false and defamatory" statement. In other words, I am being forced to sign a document saying that I am guilty without any trial taking place. The Claimant will be able to win damages for defamation in a County Court even though defamation claims can only be issued in the High Court only and even then only after engaging in a pre-action protocol. In any event, even the solicitor suing me says he was not suing for defamation and he engaged in no pre-action protocol anyway and I knew nothing of his complaint until receiving court papers through the post. The High Court has not been involved in the case at all. That judge has ordered that if I wish to apply to set aside the ruling then application must be made to him personally. This is summary justice at its most extreme and the Court Order akin to modern-day version of the ducking stool, in that I am being forced to admit guilt for something I know nothing about. The so-called witches at the Salem Trials at least got their day in Court; I was refused that privilege at the whim of the Judge.
That is completely outrageous and an affront to justice. I wonder if you're being "punished" because you are a litgant in person and I have to say that there would appear to be considerable bias against you on the part of the judge. Maybe he is protecting a fellow lawyer. I suggest that, in addition to any advice you receive from your present Solicitor, that you contact your MP and have him raise the matter with Chris Grayling.
My solicitor is as outraged as I am. He has now offered to come on the Court record, meaning that he will no longer be on a limited retainer. That means I will receive representation at Court for the next hearing (request to set aside the Court Order) which has to be done in the next two weeks. The Court has still failed to send copies of documents that have been requested on numerous occasion since 3 January 2014. These are the documents lost in the floods on 5 December 2013. I now know that the Judge who refused the video link is the most senior Judge at that Court. He is reported to have said that I have no defence. That is at total odds with what my Solicitor told me - which is that the case would probably be thrown out of Court as the Claimant had no evidence.
I now know why the judge refused to hear the case by videolink. The Claimant (who is a solicitor) was required to make the videolink but he told the Judge that I failed to turn up for the videolink! I was sitting ready and waiting for the videolink 50 minutes bnefore the court case was due to start and 20 minutes before the time from which he had booked the video conference room - I was let into the room early!
Isn't the Clerk to the Court responsible for ensuring that video links are ready and active? Sounds to me that the solicitor in question was prepared to pervert the course of justice rather than lose his case. And that's a criminal offence.
The details of what happened are somewhat cloudy. My Solicitor has put a different interpretation on what the Claimant said. My Solicitor thinks the Claimant was referring to the non-presence of anyone at the Court, rather than at the video conference centre. But the Judge appeared to believe the Claimant was referring my failure to attend by video conference or, alternatively, that he was expecting someone to represent me at The Court itself. The Claimant certainly knew I was representing myself so should have made it clear that I was present at the video conference centre. My Solicitor is considering reporting the Claimant to the Law Society.
Well, there was another hearing at a County Court in London yesterday. I was not present as I simpy cannot travel that far due to ill health now. I had both a solicitor and barrister representing me at Court. The Order granted to the Claimant was set aside and the Judge refused to grant the Claimant any new Order. The Judge offered the Claimant two choices; either to pusue the matter in a County Court near to my home or to accept my offer. The Claimant chose to accept my offer rather than pursue the lawsuit. So, there was no finding of guilt, no admission of guilt and each party pays their own costs. However, I did enter into an undertaking whif the Claimant wants to pursue any legal action against me in the future he will have to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, rather than just on the balance of probabilities. That should deter him pursuing any l;awsite in the future.
So essentially after all that he's now dropped it?! Good for you but it's obviously caused a lot of stress / anxiety for you. Let's hope this bloke keeps his neck wound in and gives you some peace
It has been very very stressful. This case started 2 days before my house got flooded and 3 days before I started with symptoms that have since been diagnosed as metastatic prostate cancer which is now at stage 4 (the final stage) I wasn't at the hearing but it turned out the Judge had a great deal of medical knowledge and could understand why I could not attend the hearing. It has also been very very expensive, due mainly to the failures of the Court. It took several weeks to get a transcript of an earlier hearing because the Court sent the recording to the wrong transcript company. Once in possession of the transcript it became clear that the Judge was not in possession of my medical problems and that the Claimant failed to produce them to the Judge. This was the hearing where I was refused the videolink. Even at what turned out to be the final hearing, the Court's failures continued. My Solicitor and Barrister turned up at Court only to discover that the Court had failed to list the case. It took 90 minutes to discover the problem and the case was delayed several hours. My Solicitor wants to report both the Judge and the Claimant (who is a Solicitor) to the relevant bodies but I have suggested he should not bother because the Claimant would probably initiate further action, seeking to send me to prison. The Claimant has pursued lawsuits against me, his former employer and one against a prospective client. He used to claim all over the internet that he was a partner to that former employer. He withdrew those claims and no longer even acknowledges that he worked at that practice. I don't really know what happened about his prospetive client but I do note that there was a Legal Ombudsman's decision against this Solicitor in July 2013 and he had to pay compensation to one client for the distress caused. During these proceedings, I discovered that the Claimant had created several fake identities on the internet, which he used to promote his business. Some of those fake identities used images of real people - this was easy to determine by using a Google reverse image search. One of those photos was of a dead man! He used these fake identities to make positive comments about himself on his website and on several social networking sites. He would use the fake identities to uprate his posts and provide links to his promotional video on Youtube. For the most part, that promotional video has very few views, except for a flurry of activity over a few days some months ago. The viewing graph is very interesting; it is certainly not the asymptote of most Youtube videos. It has over 100 likes and not a single dislike. The Claimant also wrote a book some 12 years ago yet, all four testimonials for that book on Amazon only appeared late last year. At least one of those testimonials was written by someone working at the Claimant's practice. After the dispute with his prospective client, this Solicitor then made contact with another individual to help that person's case against his prospective client! That individual is an international fraudster convicted of fraud in at least three continents and was once arrested for murder. The list of bizzare actions of this Solicitor is endless!
It now gets even more bizarre! This Solicitor is now preparing to sue me in the USA based on the same facts as the UK court case which he, in effect, withdrew from. But I think I can sidestep this issue by simply refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the US Court. I am not a US citizen and was certainly not in the USA at the relevant time anyway.
I have some experience of "forum shopping" in international commercial law. I think it is very unlikely that a US Court would take jurisdiction in a matter where neither party is American and the issues did not arise in the USA.
This solicitor has actually written scholarly articles on 'forum shopping' and the website he alludes to actually in the USA. As far as I can see, any action would fall flat on its face.
I agree. He may be under the impression that as the web site concerned is hosted on a computer that is physically situated in the US, that the alleged offence took place on American soil. With an attempt to bring the alleged offender (ie you) to book in an English Court having failed - which he would have to admit to - his only recourse would be to get the US Court to order any offending messages be removed, in other words get a "take-down" notice served. He may enjoy a greater degree of success with that.
