Monday, 2 September 2019

CORRUPT PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN & GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT

The last post dealt with my efforts with the Ombudsman to get them to censure the GLD over their refusal to answer some simple questions about who employs Appointed Persons and who is responsible for their actions when they commit crimes.

On the 2nd July they knocked back my complaint about the GLD. Then, as I am allowed, I asked them to review it and gave a wealth of reasons why their original decision was entirely wrong. I included on the last post, a copy of the letter I sent them. After waiting a month and a half I got their inevitable knockback reply dated 19th August 2019. See copy below. Once again it's just more civil service lying, twisting the facts, ignoring other facts and so on. What they have said on their page 1, is all pure civil service waffle and having it that their original decision was pure gold standard and correct and they simply will not listen to any facts as to why large parts of it were wrong and that is even shown in further documentary evidence I sent them.

Astonishingly they even tell me that in their review, they will not budge from their original decision as it is FINAL. How arrogant can you get? They may as well say every comment we make
is 100% correct and true and even if you send us evidence that it is not correct and true, we still will not budge.

On their second page they start off by saying "In your review request you say the complaint is about the conduct of a barrister during the legal process". This is absolutely typical of how civil servants twist things and LIE. For in my email letter of the 4th July headed "APPEAL AGAINST YOUR DECISION OF THE 2ND JULY" - look at what I said in my last paragraph:-
"IT IS CLEAR THAT MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE GLD, IS THE REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND LYING TO ME"
Yet they ignored that and the fact that the questions I asked the GLD are:- Who employs Appointed Persons and who pays them and who is responsible for their performance and ACTIONS at hearings?
I was forced to ask them (the GLD) these three questions as they would not answer them and kept giving me statements that were at odds with the FACTS, that the GLD are heavily involved with A/P's. I supplied them with copies of emails which showed they were heavily involved in supplying A/P's and how Appeals went. They choose to ignore this and side with the GLD this is seen by their comments in paragraph 3 on Page 2. For they said "Therefore the GLD should not respond to complaints about conduct" This when again, I had said in heavy printed capitals exactly what I was complaining about re the GLD. Of course I had explained to the GLD the BACKGROUND of why I was asking these three questions.
They also stated that an A/P is appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is a lie as they do not and I explained what the JAC had told me as to what role they played in the murky world of who appoints and who employs A/P's and so on. It is all deliberately made obscure so one can not get to who actually is responsible for the sods, when they break the law. IT IS TYPICAL of the Establishment and all those in the judicial world.....IT IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO STOP YOU EVER FINDING OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A/P'S

They tell me that the JCIO are the people who I should go to re the actions of a Barrister A/P and this despite me telling them that I had already done this years ago and got nowhere.
*********************************************************************************

19 August 2019

our Reference:        F0005931
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Cook

Your request for a review of our decision.

You recently requested a review of the decisi.on we reached on your complaint about Government Legal Department  (GLD).
I am writing to you as an Operations Manager to give you our decision on that request and explain the reasons for this. I fully apprec.ate how strong you feel about this matter.
However,  having reviewed your request,  I  have decided our original decision on your complaint was correct.  Please note that my decision has been checked and approved by another Operations Manager as part of our quality assurance process.
We are the last stage of the complaints process, which  means we make the final decisions on unresolved complaints. We do this independently and impartially and often that requires us to make difficult decisions that not everybody will agree with.
Once we have given our decision on a complaint,  this is final unless we see evidence that suggests we got something wrong. We understand that people may not always agree with our decisions and  I  recognise you think our decision was wrong.  However, we will not review our decision just for that reason.
When someone asks us for a review, we do not automatically look at the whole of the original complaint again.  Instead, we look to see if we took account of all the relevant evidence and made a fair and robust decision  based on this.  We will usually only consider if we should review a decision once.
In your review request you say the complaint is about the conduct of a barrister during the legal process.
You believe that the GLD should be responding to questions about the Barristers conduct.  You dispute that the barrister is independent of GLD and as they have provided details of barristers they should be responsible for conduct. You have provided letters from the Treasury Solicitors Office which you say show that GLD are heavily involved,  and emails from the head of law which says the Treasury Solicitors will allocate the case to an Appointed Person.
An Appointed  Person is appointed to the role by the Judicial Appointments Commission. A barrister is independent of GLD. Allocating a case to an Appointed Person does not mean they are responsible for the actions of that person. Therefore the GLD should not respond to complaints about conduct. A complaint about conduct of a barrister would need to be raised with Judici.al Conduct Investigations Office  (JCIO).  We have seen GLD have responded to your concerns explaining this.
While we acknowledge you do not agree with our decision, as you have not provided any new evidence or shown our decision is wrong, we will not be taking any further action.

Summary

We have taken into consideration the explanations you have provided for why you think we got our decision wrong.  We appreciate how important this matter is to you;  however,  after carefully considering all of the circumstances of your complaint we have decided that a review is not warranted.
Please note that a consideration of a review request marks the end of our complaints process.

Yours sincerely

Vivien Johnson
Operations Manager


********************************************************************************
I hope you can see from reading what exactly I was asking the Ombudsman to look into re the GLD, and then looking at what they have said in reply, you will pick up their lies and obfuscations. The twisting of the facts in order to confuse and ignoring facts. One example of the latter is where I gave them a copy of the email I got from the IPO which categorically stated they got A/P's from the GLD
yet the GLD denied this. How I reiterated in CAPITALS the three questions I asked the GLD to answer and which they ignored/refused to answer.
********************************************************************************

Saying that the JAC appoint Appointed Persons is AN OUTRIGHT LIE, and they say this even tho' I had contacted the JAC who confirmed they had no role in appointing Appointed Persons and I told the GLD this.....they ignore this as it does'nt fit in with all their lying statements they have made to get out of making any rulings against the GLD.

Even at this stage I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHO IN FACT APPOINTS APPOINTED PERSONS, WHO PAYS THEM AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM-ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY FALL DOWN ON THEIR JOB AND PEOPLE WISH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM. ALL THE STATEMENTS YOU END UP GETTING FROM A PLETHORA OF DEPARTMENTS ARE ALL DESIGNED TO KEEP THE TRUE FACTS FROM YOU, SO YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO TO DIRECT YOUR COMPLAINT TO, THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN AND THE A/P NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND CHARGED WITH BREAKING THE LAW.

OF COURSE IF YOU HAVE MONEY YOU HOPEFULLY CAN TAKE ON A QC AND GET IT INTO COURT FOR AN ALLEGED INDEPENDENT JUDGE WHO CAN DEAL WITH ALL THE FACTS. HOWEVER CAN ONE ABSOLUTELY BE SURE THAT EVERY JUDGE WILL BE INDEPENDENT AND GIVE YOU A FAIR HEARING AND DECISION??????.....THAT IS THE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION. I WONDER.

I SUGGEST YOU READ THE EMAILS I HAVE POSTED ON THE RECENT POSTS WHICH I GOT FROM ALL THE VARIOUS JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS WHO INDULGED IN A MERRY-GO-ROUND OF PISSING ME ABOUT AND NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS AS TO WHO EMPLOYS AND PAYS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTED PERSONS.  

No comments: