Sunday, 27 January 2019

Corrupt Ministry of Justice + Irwin Mitchell LLP Pt2

In my last post I told you about the letter I sent to the CEO of Irwin Mitchell complaining that I'd been lied to and none of the flowery promises made on their website were true but just all bullshit.

Well that letter was 3 pages long and detailed. The eventual reply I got WAS NOT FROM THE CEO
BUT FROM THE VERY PERSON I COMPLAINED ABOUT. Not one issue I detailed was dealt with and you can see this and my letter as laid out below:-

 
FAO Mr Andrew Tucker,
Chief Executive Officer,
Irwin Mitchell,
Millsands,
Sheffield,
S.8NH.

28/12/18.

Dear Mr Tucker,

SOME FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HOW YOUR COMPANY IS TREATING
PEOPLE SEEKING HELP FROM YOU - I DO HOPE YOU READ ALL THIS & DON’T BIN IT OR PUSH IT DOWN TO A CLERK OF YOURS, WHO AGAIN WILL NOT DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE THEY MESS IT UP BY NOT GRASPING THE REAL FACTS.

I am one such person and on researching what your companies attitude is to my type of problem, I saw the following flowery words: “Infringement of your Human Rights can take on many forms and you need a legal team that understands the nuances of these cases across different areas of law. Our Public Law experts have the expertise you need to build a strong case and will fight to get the justice you deserve”…...(PULL THE OTHER ONE ??)

Now I thought that is EXACTLY what I need and that thought was further strengthened when I read further on, under ‘Human Rights’ ;- “Specialising in human rights with particular experience
challenging abuses, fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to”
Then under the heading of ‘Pro-bono’Advise and support those who need it the most, yet who are often the least able to afford it-is at the heart of Irwin Probono philosophy”

As I said, all very heartening and such flowery words and promises, which gave me hope to at last be able to get the legal help I have strived to get for so long. So I rang your London office and spoke to someone to whom I very briefly described my problem. He told me he would have words with others to find who would be best placed to deal with this and they would get back to me. A Mr Ravil Hirani rang me back and I had a quite long conversation with him, when I briefly outlined my problem.

He told me he worked with IP and because I had outlined, that indirectly my problem had been brought about by the IPO, he had been asked to respond. I told him that the problem was not concerning IP at all , but the criminal actions of an IPO legal manager, together with a Barrister QC from the then Treasury Solicitors. Their combined actions had resulted in perverting the course of justice and my subsequent human rights being trashed. That had helped ruin my life and despite going down every possible avenue of complaints procedures with every government department I had to turn to, all I had met was a wall of lies and covering up. This had taken me years to get through, before I turned to writing to the Justice Minister, Gauke, and then the PM, Mrs May. Both had simply passed on my complaints about the MoJ, back to them and predictably I got nowhere. They brushed me off by telling me they had no jurisdiction to take action, yet it was one of their Barristers who had committed criminal actions-it beggars belief that they said this, when they are responsible for our justice system and presumably they think it is quite OK for one of their employees to break the law, while they did nothing!

Now given all your flowery words and promises, what I got back is not what I expected to hear. Especially as when I had spoken with Mr Hirani, I had told him that the law breaking had taken place at a meeting that the IPO had set up under the guise of it being an ‘Appeal Hearing’ brought about by my ex business agent, when he had lost to me at a previous tribunal hearing. I was denied attendance to this alleged appeal hearing, but when I saw the transcript of it some two years later, I could see that it had not been a bona-fide ‘appeal hearing’ but a meeting set up under the guise of it being an appeal hearing. This enabled the IPO through the barrister, to give unlimited legal advice as to how my opponent could circumvent the decision against him and that is exactly what he did. He was aided by the IPO and that resulted in 2010, with the IPO taking my legally registered T/M off me. I bet here you are not believing this and will think it’s a figment of my imagination. Anyway I told Hirani that if someone read this transcript they would see that what I am alleging, is 100% true.

He told me to send via email that transcript, plus the letter from the IPO to me telling me I could not attend that alleged appeal hearing. Which by the way, my opponent had no bona-fide right to have an appeal, in any case. So I send him via email, copies of the proof that it was a bogus hearing, and by separate email via ‘we transfer’ service, the 48 pages of the transcript. The reply on the 12th Dec with a reference number of FID1331954, was not at all what I expected to get from your company, given that I thought you were honest and experts in what you do. I had opined that this case came under ‘PUBLIC LAW/PUBLIC INTEREST’ and he said that that department had said it should have been dealt with by a Judicial Review. This after I had specifically pointed out to him that the IPO had taken 15 months to tell me the outcome of what I had thought was a bona-fide appeal hearing which turned out not to be one at all. So no decision had been made ( and no Judicial Review can be applicable) and I realised I had been stitched up. It took me another year to get a transcript and so to see exactly how I had been stitched up, by it being a massive legal advice giving session and not an ‘appeal hearing’. I know full well about JR’s and they are not applicable here, as no bona-fide appeal hearing took place and so no decision to have a review on, plus things had been manipulated by the IPO to make sure the time scales were too long, anyway, that is to the time I realised the unlawfulness had taken place.

I replied to this garbled response on the 13th Dec and you should read what I said, so I will not repeat what I said, here. Given that I had clearly set out that such a case can attract Legal Aid and I’d sent him copy of the Legal Aid Board letter to me saying it was-for such a case, to have him now telling me that it doesn’t and that if I paid £20K-£25K on account, you would start with a case. Given that right at the beginning I had told Hirani that I was penniless, otherwise I would have taken my own legal action way back, to then be asked to pay, shows that your staff were not giving this any thought to what I’d said and were in actual fact insulting me. Plus so much for your Pro-bono, flowery words.

Worse than that, after I had sent Hirani my email of the 13th complaining about aspects of what he had said, I then got an email back on the 21st from him in which he said “The relevant teams reviewed the information (copies of emails and letters & THE TRANSCRIPT) you provided us”
Now when you send a long document via ‘we transfer’ they tell you if it has been opened and yet they informed me that it was never opened. So lies are being told here and that is DISGUSTING and had they read that transcript they would have seen I have a case, as legal advice was given in bucket loads and so on and THAT IS SIMPLY UNLAWFUL !!

Then it was said that I wanted to bring a private prosecution and that was not covered by legal aid.
However I did not say I wanted this, as I have no money to do so. I had always strived to get this dealt with by the departments concerned internally and that is why I chose to go down ALL the routes open to me, like the IPO CEO, The Treasury Solicitors Office, JACO and OJC, and the Bar Standards Board, to mention just a few. With everyone of them stonewalling & lying to me to cover it all up. Yet under Public Law/Public Interest, this in my opinion absolutely comes under that, it is, as I showed in the Legal Aid Board reply, that legal aid can be given. For a government department to behave in this way is a National Disgrace and must be exposed and how can a private individual do that? Are they to be allowed to get away with it, simply because they put me into penury?? Then what about your boast of Pro-bono??

Plus advising that it is a Police matter is a joke, when they refused before to take any action against the IPO in 2010/11 when I went to the Dorset Police with my very substantial dossier. The IPO simply slagged me off, denigrated me to hell and lied about the law to the thick copper. It was made plain to me then, that I would be wasting my time going to them again to get them to mount an investigation into what went on at that bogus hearing, even when all of it was criminal and shown in black and white.

So my comments to you are:- WHY ARE YOU INTIMATING ON YOUR WEBSITE THAT YOU DO PRO-BONO AND THAT YOU DO HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN IT SEEMS YOU DON’T.

PLUS WHY ARE YOUR STAFF LYING AND SAYING THEY HAVE GONE OVER THE DOCUMENTS THEY TOLD ME TO SEND, WHEN IT IS CLEAR THEY HAVEN’T. WHY IS IT THAT DESPITE STATING YOU WILL GIVE ADVICE, WHEN ALL YOU WANT IS MONEY BEING PAID TO YOU? However there is one way I can find money to pay any lawyer if no lawyer in the UK really does Pro-bono, and that is to crowd fund my case. I have found a London firm of lawyers who run a website called CrowdJustice, but I can only get my story onto that website if I can get a law firm like yours to agree ‘In Priniciple’ that they will act for me when whatever level of money that is needed is raised. Surely with all your promises as outlined above, if all they are are Scots mist and or B/S, you would at least agree to that?? Please let me know.

Under HRA Article 6, I have had my rights abused both by the police and the IPO and the MoJ. However it seems to me that in the UK today, ones H/Rights only applies to immigrants.

So are you going to be yet another law entity prepared to whitewash this and fail to come up to your claims and thus aiding law breakers in government ?? Please don’t tell me I can go to the Law Society or any Ombudsman as they are all a con on the Public and only protect all in the law industry.

Will it be too much to give me the decency of a reply and better still one that means you are willing to stand by your promises? If you had any brains and foresight, and got all the facts that I have not so far divulged to you, you would see that this is a massive case, that when exposed to the Public, would get you untold and free exposure for your company, thus showing how good you are at exposing corruption in high places. And that can’t be bad unless of course you don’t want to rock the Justice System boat and risk putting your nose out of place with your fellow Law Establishment Johnnies????

Regards,



Ken Cook,
Bournemouth,

Their reply


24 January 2019

Dear Mr Cook.  YOUR LETTER OF COMPLAINT. I acknowledge your letter dated 28 December 2018, addressed to Andrew Tucker.I have been given delegated authority by Mr Tucker to respond to your letter. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying.The information provided in my email dated 13 December 2018 and letter dated 21 December 2018 stands. Both correspondence set out in full the reason why we have decided that we cannot pursue this matter on your behalf. I understand that you do not agree with our decision.

However, I again refer you to the Legal Ombudsman should you remain dissatisfied. I also remind you that if you choose to refer your concern to the Legal Ombudsman, you must do so by no later than 20 June 2019.I am satisfied that your concern has already been addressed and dealt with sufficiently by this firm. We will not enter into protracted correspondence with you regarding this matter. Therefore, any further communications you send to this firm will be placed on our file but will not be responded to.

Yours sincerely, RAVIL HIRANI

SOLICITOR
 For and on behalf of IRWIN MITCHELL LLP 

So if you read my letter and the points I made about what was said to me and how I was lied to etc, and then read the short above reply.....YOU WILL SEE THAT NOT ONE OF MY COMMENTS/POINTS AND FACTS I BROUGHT UP ARE DEALT WITH and
furthemore if you write in again they will just bin your letter.
Now this is exactly how one gets treated, not only by shyster lawyers but their twins in the civil service. No matter what argument and comments/points you make, they ignore 98% of them and only remark on a point which they feel they can rubbish. IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU SIMPLY CANNOT GET ANYWHERE WITH ANY OF THESE ASSHOLE ESTABLISHMENT JOHNNIES-THEY JUST BRICKWALL YOU AND YOU'RE HELPLESS & THEY KNOW IT. FOR THEY KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CASH TO GET THEM INTO A COURT AND THAT IS ONLY PROVIDING YOU CAN FIND AN HONEST BARRISTER TO TIE THEM UP IN KNOTS, OVER ALL THEIR CORRUPT ACTIONS AND LIES.

IN MY NEXT POST COMING UP I WILL SHOW YOU THE EXACT SAME CORRUPT ACTIONS, BUT THIS TIME CARRIED OUT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN WHO REFUSE TO EVEN ASK THE MoJ A SIMPLE QUESTION. 

No comments: