The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors Regulation ...The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors...

Contra Cabal 880-49-20b The Legal Ombudscam - Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

Disingenuous Propaganda - The Epitome of Self-Deception

Nicholas Simon Hawkins, Chief Executive, Legal Ombudsman

The Gullible (or greedy) Couple from IPCC

To parody Karl Marx: From each according to his inability, to each according to his greed.

Kathryn Stone and Nicholas S Hawkins must immediately arrange an independent public

inquiry into this case or personally except responsibility for the illegal situation that they have

inherited. They were only employed at Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for

about a year. It sounds like their ticket expired. A reasonable person must ask whether IPCC

has become a temporary parking lot for out-of-work bureaucrats.

Précis

Bureaucrats have traditionally used elaborate procedures and ceremonies to make their illegal

exercise of power acceptable to the public. They manage the judicial system along lines

generally not accepted in law. A closer look shows that they absolutely control it by

simultaneously assuming the roles of prosecution, defense, judge and jury. They pervert the

course of justice under the guise of “risk management protocols” to hide the “kangaroo court”

stigma earned by conducting their duties with disregard for the rights of individuals. Judicial

decisions tend to result from foregone conclusions made in secret and based upon political or

other bias. Ironically, Legal Ombudsman (LeO) allows “risk management” by prior restraint,

censorship, gagging and other devious practices contrary to law.

Fraudulent risk management stratagems use a total disregard for law to benefit the

transgressor at great expense to the complainant by formulating a self-serving pattern or

practice. Pattern or practice defines as, and manifests in, two or more organized acts or

instances which indicate ensuant activity. Those acts include conspiracy to harass and coerce

complainants through wrongful use of language that evades a duty of care using weasel

stratagems known as “maladministration” instead of applying the legal term and principals

"misconduct in public office".

Ombudsmen and their sycophantic assistants frequently convene kangaroo courts to deny due

process of law and to cover up crimes that legitimate hearings would expose. The whole

procedure characterizes dishonesty by establishing legal protocols that emulate Star Chamber

practices used to enforce royal prerogatives in the seventeenth century. Truly democratic

governments have since outlawed them.

LeO employees include Amanda Jane Charlton (SRA #355199) as an Ombudsman. Admitted

to the roll of solicitors of England and Wales (03 November 2003), Charlton does not hold a

current practising certificate and is published on the roll of solicitors as a non-practising

solicitor. There are Findings and Orders that have been made by the Solicitors Disciplinary

© Copyright 2011 by Paul Trummel. All rights reserved. Contra Cabal 880-49-20b/15-1212-1742 of 22

http://contracabal.com/880-49-20.html

Tribunal (SDT) against Charlton (Reference #100751-2008 - 24 March 2009). At the conclusion

of the hearing the Tribunal made the following Order:

Finding of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Constituted under the Solicitors Act

1974. The Tribunal Orders that the respondent Amanda Jane Charlton of Evolution

Legal, 111 Hagley Road, Birmingham, B16 8LB solicitor, be Reprimanded and it further

Orders that she do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed

in the sum of £11,200.00.

[Charlton - Reference #10075-2008]

A reasonable person must ask how LeO can claim that it is independent and impartial and will

look at the facts in each case and weigh-up both sides of the story. They falsely claimed that

LeO it not a consumer champion, part of the legal profession and independent of government;

however, in contrast they employed Charlton as an ombudsman.

Hawkins allows blackmail and extortion against journalists and the public using a bizarre,

unlawful procedure arbitrarily called "vexatious". That procedure denies legitimate access to

information using a dubious court finding (under appeal in Supreme Court) that allows gagging

and abuse of process (arbitrary decisions and entrapment) by police officers, bureaucrats and

ombudsmen, in particular, Louise Hopkins, LeO Ombudsman and her inverse racist gatekeeper

Gurmit Sangha et alia.

Ombudsman dishonesty, fronted by fraudulent academic credentials and honours obtained

through sycophancy and mutual blackmail has become the norm. Access to the truth is

guarded by gatekeepers, many of them from minority cultures to evade criticism on politically

correct racial grounds. They divert awkward questions to hide the truth. That practice defines

as inverse racism.

The term “Inverse racism” applies to the employment of intelligent and predominantly moral

people of colour (with legitimate professional and academic credentials earned ethically at great

expense) as "house niggers". In turn, that provokes further racial and/or cultural

discrimination when they accept the offer of phenomenal salaries that they have never

previously experienced. More pernicious, their moral and ethical compass disappears forever.

[Sycophants of Colour: The Gatekeepers of Corruption]

Using that predominantly racist procedure, LeO repeatedly withholds the names of people

handling cases in which they make arbitrary unsigned decisions without a hearing. It also

allows them to make false accusations of crimes against victims in cases that never receive the

evaluation of an unbiased ombudsman.

Christopher S Graham’s much vaunted claim that: "The ICO's mission is to uphold information

rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for

individuals" ranks as a normal claim by oligarchs and pathological liars justified by ICO revised

guidance reflected in three decisions as a pattern or practice: Dransfield, Craven and Ainslie.


Those decisions claim that section 14(1) FOIA is designed to allow arbitrary refusal where there

is the potential for a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.

ICO suggests that authorities apply the following balancing exercise: serious purpose plus

requester’s aims and legitimate motivation plus wider public interest and objective value versus

detrimental impact on the authority plus evidence that the requester is abusing the right of

access. That determination allows for arbitrary, emotional refusal and gagging for political

expedience when LeO staff do not hold psychological qualifications that enable them to make

medical decisions on the behaviour and motives of any claimant.

The Big Lie

If you believe this propaganda, then they will provide more. Simply put, most ombudsman

decisions are quick and dirty with virtually no legal recourse.

If you have a complaint about the service we have provided then you should raise these

issues with us at the earliest opportunity. An example of a service complaint might

include our failure to keep you informed or our failure to explain things properly to you.

Please contact the investigators at the Legal Ombudsman who you usually deal with.

They, with their manager, will try to put right anything we may have done wrong as

quickly as possible. They will acknowledge your complaint about our service and they

will then look into your concern. If we are unable to resolve your complaint about our

service at this stage, we will explain the full process we have for responding to you so

that you can decide what to do next.

Our service complaint procedure does not cover any dissatisfaction felt about the

outcome of an investigation or any final decision that we make about the level of service

provided. We will always explain the reasons for our decisions, but once an

ombudsman's decision is made then the investigation process is complete under the

rules of the Legal Ombudsman scheme. The decision is final and there is no appeal

process against an ombudsman's decision. The only way to overturn it is by way of a

court action called judicial review.

Judicial Review (law). Review by a court of law of actions of a government official or

entity or of some other legally appointed person or body or the review by an appellate

court of the decision of a trial court.

Another infamous Ombudsman wrote:

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie

there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are

always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than

consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more

readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small

lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would

never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe


that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though

the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still

doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For

the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed

down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire

together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the

basest purposes.

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (My Struggle), 1925.

Ombudsmen or public advocates are usually appointed by the government or parliament with

a significant degree of independence. They are charged with representing the interests of the

public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or violation of rights.

Below the national level an ombudsman may be appointed by a state, local or municipal

government. Unofficial ombudsmen may also be appointed by, or even work for, a corporation

such as a utility supplier, newspaper or professional regulatory body.

The major advantage of an ombudsman is that he or she examines complaints from outside the

offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest inherent in self-policing.

However, the ombudsman system relies heavily on the selection of an appropriate individual

for the office and on the cooperation of at least some effective official from within the apparatus

of the state.

The typical duties of an ombudsman are to investigate complaints and attempt to resolve them,

usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation. Ombudsmen also aim to

identify systemic issues leading to poor service or breaches of human and civil rights. At the

national level, most ombudsmen have a wide mandate to deal with the entire public sector and

elements of the private sector (for example, contracted service providers).

Maladministration

Maladministration decisions effectively call for saying "sorry", tantamount to granting impunity

for serious crimes by issuing "get-out-of-jail-free cards". They do not suffice as a legal means

to punish crimes committed with malice aforethought by public sector officials and their

sycophants to create catch-22 stratagems. Moreover, maladministration protocols favour

arbitrary decisions by unqualified (and in some cases subliterate) unprincipled, bureaucratic

double-dippers. If the victims complain, then they ratchet up the coercion and start a merry-go-

round by completely ignoring the legal right to proportionality.

This procedure has become widespread in UK when handling complaints about refusal of

public services to aged people in violation of Equality Act 2010. Ombudsman services and

judicial reviews encourage public sector officials to repeat the same adverse behaviour with

impunity. Officials use mutual blackmail (as demonstrated in these case studies) to evade laws

and deny their victims due process without proportionality.

Proportionality, a general principle in law, covers several special (although related) concepts

used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes. It especially


applies to constitutional law as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct

balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature

of the prohibited act. Within criminal law, it conveys the notion that the punishment of an

offender should fit the crime. A crime has to not only be clearly defined but proven using

statutes and valid legal precedents. That prohibits arbitrarily quoting of law and reasoned

argument in each case and every given circumstance. Gilbert and Sullivan would jubilate at

the behaviour of the Legal Ombudsman and his comic opera.

History

A prototype for an ombudsmen may have flourished in China and Korea (circa 221 BC). A

secret royal inspector acted as an undercover official directly appointed by the king was sent

to local provinces to monitor government officials and look after the populace while travelling

incognito. The Roman Tribune had similar roles and possessed the power of veto. Another

precursor was Turkish. An indigenous Scandinavian term, “ombudsman” is etymologically

rooted in the Old Norse word “umbodsmadr” which essentially means "representative".

Use of the term began with the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman instituted by the

Instrument of Government in 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a

supervisory agency independent of the executive branch. The Parliamentary Ombudsman was

the institution that the Scandinavian countries subsequently developed into its contemporary

form adopted in many other parts of the world.

Case Study - Attempt to Railroad a Journalist

This response addresses a disingenuous attempt by Nicholas Simon Hawkins, Chief Executive,

Legal Ombudsman to railroad a complainant by arbitrarily changing the continuum of a

complaint originally filed in 2011. He used anonymously obtained false and misleading

evidence to arbitrarily deny due process of law using Gurmit Sangha, SRA, a gatekeeper, who

made unsubstantiated assertions.

The “retroactive preemption” to recycle a four-year-old case without forensic investigation of

multiple instances of fraudulent processing (in violation of Solicitor Regulation Authority (SRA)

and Law Society protocols) by people who did not sign decisions and refused to provide their

names and titles is a sure sign of machination. The adulterated evidence contains libelous

statements about the behaviour of a journalist complainant published since 1944 without a

single legitimate challenge to his veracity.

Gurmit Sangha disingenuously stated (24 Nov 15):

Further to your recent emails to Mr Hawkins, I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

Having looked at the history of this matter, I am aware that in November 2014 our

Assessment Centre wrote to you explaining that your complaints about Widdows Mason

did not fall within our Scheme Rules. You have returned with further information

detailing why you feel that view is incorrect. I have therefore requested that our file

together with your representations is placed before one of our Ombudsman who has


had no previous dealings with this matter, and a review is conducted. The Ombudsman

will write to you shortly once they have reviewed the case.

Any reasonable person will understand that stratagem as a means to rachet up the coercion

and frustrate the issues before making another arbitrary decision without forensic investigation

of the evidence. It evades mitigation of the damage caused during four years of misconduct in

public office by a variety of “ombudsmen” frequently exposed as bureaucratic, double-dipping

leeches equipped with suckers at both ends.

Sangha did not refer with particularity in his new offer (24 Nov 15) to the summary of the

complaint (29 Jun 14) which was previously subjected to an anonymous general denial

attributed to him. He must produce copies of the hearing transcript and other documents that

support that arbitrary decision prior to discussing the issues further.

Summary - Complaint to Legal Ombudsman - 29 June 2014

A complaint to the Legal Ombudsman alleges maladministration, conflict of interest, gross

misconduct and fraud by HCB Solicitors Limited (#07474715) comprising HCB Widdows Mason

Limited (#08228997) and a CLB Coopers partner and solicitor: Keith Freer (#126294) former HCB

Widdows Mason Ltd., Director in a consort with Mark Terence Getliffe (#141560), Solicitor, CLB

Coopers; Michael David Gahan (#374508), Chief Executive, HCB Solicitors; Daniel Edward Da

Silva Jesus (#21625), Director, HCB Solicitors; Geoffrey James Thompson (#97654), Client

Services Manager, HCB Widdows Mason Limited.

Michael D Gahan, Chief Executive of HCB, claimed:

We have acquired eight law firms in the past three years and Widdows Mason is a

natural progression for the HCB brand. It also opens up the north of England to further

expansion (08 Nov 13).

In view of denials of liability by Keith Freer, Complainant started a corporate investigation into

what turned out to be a three-ring circus that effectively construed as corporate against

stakeholders and clients alike. Companies House records show a certificate of incorporation

for Widdows Mason Limited with Da Silva, Freer and Gahan as directors with all previous E J

Bamforth and Widdows Mason documentation transferred to the new company (12 Sep 12).

Widdows Mason ceased trading (13 Oct 13). The directors then filed a certificate of change of

name from Widdows Mason Limited to HCB Widdows Mason Limited (15 Nov 13). Thompson

transferred as solicitor of record to Widdows Mason Limited (26 Sep 12): however, SRA had no

record of Thompson on its records (since corrected by SRA as a result of information and

documents provided by Complainant).

Various elements of the HCB conglomerate provided services to the Complainant (a Client since

2009) which he claims are ongoing although HCB directors arbitrarily claim to the contrary.

Legal Ombudsman regulations required clients with complaints to give the directors eight


weeks before filing with the Legal Ombudsman during which time they should have attempted

to mitigate damage. The “evidence” shows a panoply of liars repeatedly lying to liars.

HCB Widdows Mason Limited, Complaints Procedure stated:

Your complaint will normally be dealt with by Geoff Thompson, the firm's Client

Services Manager who is also a Solicitor, at our Chester Office, 9 Hunter Street, Chester

CH1 2AG, telephone 01244 784522. If your complaint is against the Client Services

Manager, it will be dealt with by Mr Keith Freer, the firm's Managing Partner at our

Westhoughton Office, 63 Market Street, Westhoughton, Bolton BL5 3AG, telephone

01942 816515.

An information release gave all registered HCB solicitors an opportunity to respond to an

alleged joint and several, gross negligence complaint against their directors and several

solicitors in an attempt to mitigate damage. The only responses the Complainant received

amounted to nothing more than general denials inadmissible as a response in any complaint

process or hearing; consequently, the non-response provided grounds to elevate the complaint

to the Legal Ombudsman.

The Complainant has met his duty of care to HCB solicitors not involved in the alleged scam

perpetrated by their directors and met the requirements of the Legal Ombudsman in the Legal

Services Act 2007 (not the false and misleading Scheme Rules). The chronology and particulars

show the present structure of HCB. If individual HCB solicitors disputed the content or

structure, then they had more than a month to respond.

Freer sent subliterate responses containing downright lies then tried to start a merry-go-round

to evade his responsibility to address the issues (12 Feb 14) by referring them to Mark T

Getliffe, Partner and Solicitor, CLB Coopers. Freer's appointment as a director of HCB Widdows

Mason Limited then terminated (14 Mar 14 filed 18 Mar 14) leaving Gahan and Da Silva Jesus

as the only remaining directors.

Gahan and Da Silva Jesus, HCB Directors then appointed Angela Dumper, Director, HCB

Widdows Mason Limited, 18-20 King Street, Leigh, Lancashire, WN7 4LR. Companies House

has no record of registration of that appointment as an HCB director and a background check

showed that she possessed no law credentials either academic or professional.

Several requests to Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) revealed that Dumper held no

practicing certificate as a solicitor and SRA registered her as "Compliance Officer for Finance

and Administration, HCB Widdows Mason Limited (SRA #613397)". When questioned by

Complainant, SRA could not explain the anomaly that it published as "Main role not specified"

unlike registrations for all other HCB solicitors which have the annotation "Admitted as a

solicitor 00/00/00".

Michael D Gahan, Solicitor and Chief Executive evaded the issues by referring them back to

Freer stating: "Please forward all correspondence to Keith who will revert (sic) to you. Please

stop emailing others in the firm as they are not the correct contact or indeed the same legal

entity". Both SRA and Companies House see that as a contradiction.


Records show a distinct legal relationship between companies under the HCB brand which

Gahan acknowledged in his public statement: "We have acquired eight law firms in the past

three years and Widdows Mason is a natural progression for the HCB brand. . . ." Da Silva

Jesus did not respond at all and Geoffrey J Thompson (the Complainant's solicitor of record)

neither responded to correspondence from the Complainant nor addressed the issues for

eighteen months.

The issues relate to complaints to Chester & District Housing Trust (Sanctuary Housing

Association), National Grid Gas and SSE Energy Supply that have been on the Widdows Mason

client books for almost four years without them taking any action despite an urgent health and

safety need. By that dereliction, the Complainant has been without heat and hot water for the

four worst winters on record which impinges upon his rights as an octogenarian tenant and

constitutes harassment and age discrimination in violation of The Human Rights Act 1998

(HRA) and other statutes in pari materia.

The flat has been virtually uninhabitable for that time due to carbon monoxide and other

noxious gas emissions in addition to structural deficiencies which contravene Health and

Safety Regulations. There are no outstanding debts for rent or taxes. All complaint procedures

have been followed through to the Information Commissioner who has used his corporation

sole status to block decision notices and cover up dereliction by HSE/HCA which Widdows

Mason failed to address and prevented elevation of the issues to the courts.

Inaction by HCB Widdows Mason Limited has allowed the actual damages to reach in excess

of £500,000. That negligence relates to all the issues described in the position paper and

chronology. If HCB Widdows Mason Limited or Widdows Mason Limited found that they had

a conflict of interest, then they had three years in which to declare it. They have been fully

apprised by email of all the circumstances on a regular basis and at two meetings to discuss

the situation at which they promised to take specific action to mitigate the damage.

Paul Trummel, Professor Emeritus.

The complaint to the Legal Ombudsman contained a portfolio of documents supporting these

contentions complete with a meeting chronology to which the anonymous person requested

clarifying information which had already been sent to him/her: a request obviously designed to

confuse the issues. Sangha has responded to the request to Hawkins with similar contrived

naivety; consequently, a request is made to immediately remove him from the case. Any further

correspondence from Sangha will be ignored unless it bears the signature of Hawkins who is now

the responsible party in the current debacle.

Preamble - The Law Society - Solicitors Regulation Authority - Antony Townsend

For two years, Antony Townsend, Chief Executive Officer, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

spent his time propagandizing a rehash of the SRA Handbook on YouTube while he neglected

to address incompetence and age discrimination among his staff. His anarchistic bureaucracy

effectively granted impunity for Roy M Mincoff, National Union of Journalists (NUJ) In-House


Solicitor (a rogue solicitor already subject to an SRA complaint for professional misconduct)

maliciously to hold kangaroo courts and conduct a cover-up of criminal fraud by NUJ officials

while bullying the octogenarian Complainant.

Repeated politically expedient handling of complaints shows an urgent need for an independent

ombudsman to investigate agism then publicly report the findings. Incidences of delaying

process to deny justice and evade responsibility properly to investigate complaints have

drastically increased by use of a number of evasive ploys.

The most common disgrace relates to delay of process to such an extent that the time taken

for a decision exceeds the normal life expectancy of a complainant. SRA employees take a

gamble on death to evade their responsibility in law to act expeditiously then call it "risk

management". National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has two solicitors facing fraud complaints

with Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for discrimination by withholding legal services and

professional misconduct for over a decade based upon agism: complaints which SRA has

deliberately delayed investigating for another four years.

[Age Discrimination]

[Without Let or Hindrance - The Sequel]

John Norton, Legal Services Ombudsman (charged with investigating incompetent or

deliberately subversive actions by SRA executives and staff) stated that he could not proceed

with an investigation until SRA made a decision: a decision that should have taken about

30 days. However, Townsend and a bevy of SRA bimbos did not properly investigate the

complaint although six years have elapsed since the filing. By that, both Norton and Townsend

relied upon a “kick-the-bucket catch-22" that they deliberately created and awaited

Complainant’s demise which they thought would end their responsibility to act.

Norton did not process a complaint filed under the old rules during a statutory transition and

used Kristianne James as a proxy to disingenuously confuse the issues. James, who would not

reveal her job title and responsibilities, hid behind an anonymous email address to respond to

the complaint with insolence and ignorance to cover up Norton's kick-the-bucket shell game.

SRA and the Legal Ombudsman neither investigated nor made a determination on a complaint

(filed 18 May 2009) which has compounded the problems and caused substantial financial

damage through delay and denial of process. Both Townsend and Norton took advantage of the

transition of authority to confuse the issues to their own advantage. Their ethics rank no better

than those of the shysters subject to the complaint. Now Hawkins, the new Chief Executive,

Legal Ombudsman has used a gatekeeper to create another dilemma.

Norton’s attempt to weasel out of his responsibility to investigate started another merry-go-

round by referring the complaint to Independent Complaint Resolution Service (ICRS) which

did not hold a mandate to address the issues. By that, Norton created yet another disingenuous

catch-22.


ICRS can only investigate complaints after SRA has concluded its complaints process; however,

for four years SRA has not started a legitimate investigation. In fact, under revised rules ICRS

mandate called for it to refer some of the issues back to Norton as Legal Services Ombudsman

and the remainder to the Legal Ombudsman. None of them could address the problem until

SRA rendered a decision on the complaint which Townsend continued to obstruct.

Independent Complaint Resolution Service asserts:

How we deal with complaints about the SRA. It is important to stress that:

• We can only investigate after the SRA’s internal complaints process has been

concluded. The SRA should inform you when this stage is reached, and should tell you

how to contact ICRS.

• We can only investigate complaints about the conduct of SRA – for example about

delay, inefficiency or unfairness. We cannot review any regulatory decisions that have

been made.

• We cannot investigate complaints against individual solicitors or organisations

employing solicitors. Complaints about solicitors should be referred to the Legal

Ombudsman.

Townsend’s delay and deny tactics created another dilemma because the complaint spanned

two separate and contradictory policies which allowed Norton to use a time-warp stratagem to

further confuse the issues and deny due process.

Cuan Gibson, Team Manager, SRA Conduct Investigation Unit made arbitrary assertions that

no professional misconduct by the solicitors named in the complaint ever took place without

investigating the complaint. He also stated (quoting Manfield and Forde) that in-house solicitors

do not act for trade union members (who pay their salaries), an assertion made without

substantiation and contradicted by the SRA Handbook.

Gibson then threatened Complainant that: “. . . the SRA would strongly advise you to consider

carefully the contents of any statements you make about members of the SRA or LCS staff on

any web site or in any press release as we will not hesitate to take appropriate action where

defamatory statements are made” before a word had been spoken or written which defines as

an unlawful prior restraint.

With Townsend's knowledge, a confused and arrogant Carolyn Jones, Complaints Officer,

Inclusion Directorate, SRA slithered out of the long grass to start another merry-go-round in

the SRA three-ring-circus. Jones joined Gibson in unlawfully threatening Complainant that she

would apply an unlawful prior restraint on communication and made false and misleading

claims to support those threats. She then withheld documents to prevent a challenge to her

unlawful assertions.

As a public sector employee, Jones ignored her duty of care to address the issues and avoid

conflicts of interest. In her attempts to support rogue solicitors in their professional

misconduct, Jones effectively granted them impunity then confused the issues to deny


Complainant due process of law at an unbiased hearing which clearly describes the current

situation that Hawkins has inherited from Adam Sampson (former Ombudsman).

Michelle Stanistreet, Deputy NUJ General Secretary evidently plagiarized (14 Jun 11) Gibson's

copy then committed election fraud by violating Trade Union and Labour Relations

(Consolidation) Act 1992 which resulted in her fraudulent appointment (election unopposed)

as NUJ General Secretary (01 Jul 11) and frustration of a public inquiry to cover up

misappropriation of £260,000.00 obtained in a consort with Jack Straw.

Stanistreet asserted without any substantiation in law that:

You are required to confirm by return that you will remove forthwith from your web

sites any and all untruthful or defamatory content as to the NUJ or any of its members

or employees and issue an apology in wording to be supplied by NUJ, on receipt of your

confirmation that you will take down such offending remarks and publish the apology.

You are required to confirm that you will permanently desist from publishing any

further untruthful or defamatory material about NUJ, it members or employees. . . .

Should you fail to agree, or contravene the above, such steps as may be appropriate will

be taken against you without further notice with a costs order sought and enforced

against you.

As with Gibson, Stanistreet does not understand the meaning of truthful reportage and that

prior restraint of journalists is an indictable offense especially when committed by the general

secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

Stanistreet did not say what she finds "untruthful and defamatory" neither did she prove

malice. Moreover, she did not say what authority in law she had to try to control the individual

rights to freedom of expression of 37,000 journalists. It is even more preposterous for her, as

an official of the principal journalists' trade union that claims to fight for freedom of expression,

to publish an illegal censorship statement on an NUJ letterhead. The public has the right to

know about the corruption within NUJ and the fraud perpetrated by Mincoff and Stanistreet

to cover it up also by extension the machination of SRA, the Law Society and its Ombudsmen.

No untruthful or defamatory content knowingly exists on any Contra Cabal web site as

everything had ethical validation and verification prior to publication. Furthermore, the

Complainant, first published in 1944, has never received a libel challenge. That amounts to 70

years of unblemished record in comparison to Stanistreet who cannot go 70 minutes without

behaving disingenuously. By that, she jumped on Gibson's bandwagon to win the Contra Cabal

bimbo of the week ignominy award.

Unlike most other investigative journalists, Contra Cabal writers have always given individuals

featured in Contra Cabal prior notice in accordance with international codes of ethics agreed

among journalists. They all have an opportunity to mitigate damage and to refute statements

that could negatively affect their reputations or cause investigation or prosecution of them for

alleged illegal acts: a procedure not followed by Stanistreet who repeatedly slags NUJ members

without reason.


Do Gibson, Jones and Stanistreet genuinely believe that their arrogant remarks and

arbitrary decisions overrule a unanimous decision by nine judges in Washington State

Supreme Court which determined the right freely to publish Contra Cabal with content

similar to that which they would censor to cover up corruption and their own dereliction

and fraudulent behavior and that of consecutive Ombudsmen?

That ruling did not provide much protection when despotic administrators made illegal threats

because they disagreed with the content of messages: a disagreement probably based upon

disclosure of their own malfeasance. They feared dissent and had an aversion to controversy.

Their addiction to political correctness frequently causes them to invoke censorship. They act

upon an irrational expectation that a publication may contain something that they would not

wish others to read, then arbitrarily suppress it - actions that Sangha is effectively setting up

to cover Hawkins and the latest love of their life Kathryn Stone OBE recently appointed Chief

Ombudsman for the Legal Ombudsman. Steve Green, Chair a “plod”of thirty years standing

uses unlawful electronic filtering of email to mark correspondence about the case as read when

he has not opened it. A clear case of psychiatric displacement.

Censors participate in a cover-up of crime when they exclude or censor material which contains

statements that expose criminal activity. A US Supreme Court opinion declared that any

system of prior restraint carries a heavy presumption against constitutionality and that censors

must bear the heavy burden of justifying prior restraint or censorship of content protected by

the First Amendment.

Some administrators mistakenly distinguish between speech and electronic communication

and wrongly apply different rules. Systems operators may not censor the electronic media any

more than bookstore owners may censor books. US Supreme Court agreed with a similar

contention on First Amendment grounds in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).

Similar precedents apply in UK and EU (until a recalcitrant, psychopathic “corporation sole”

Information Commissioner perverts them). The recent Dransfield decision (now subject to

Supreme Court review) and Ombudsman reform will hopefully get rid of this “incestuous buddy

system”.

Current serious criticisms of the Ombudsman detail grave concern and call for the

establishment of external audit mechanisms to benchmark and assure the quality of

Ombudsman investigations. Accountability for the Ombudsman is now firmly on scrutiny

agendas, due largely to public demand. Investigation determined common weaknesses in the

process which need to be addressed instead of using racist gatekeeping procedures to bin

complaints arbitrarily.

Ombudsnakes

Do not investigate complaints fairly and ignore evidence in favour of arbitrary decisions.

Take sides with the organisation they are supposed to investigate even when there is clear

evidence to the contrary.


Confuse the issues to give the impression of giving service, then evade straightforward

processing.

Repeatedly ask questions that the complainant already answered and change case

workers/investigators without informing the complainant.

Take weeks to respond and then ask questions which could be answered by reading the

previously submitted paperwork.

Produce reports that do not reflect reasoned argument or comprehensive investigation despite

inaccuracies highlighted by the complainant when the report is in draft format.

There is no systematic and independent process for investigating incidents and learning from

serious failures to provide due process of law.

No single person or organisation holds responsibility and accountability for the quality of

investigations or for ensuring that lessons learned drive improvement in fairness.

Highly critical of the role of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), a report

called for an internal change programme to be drawn up by the Ombudsman and placed in the

public domain as a matter of urgency.

The inquiry confirmed low public confidence and that expectation outstrips current capacity,

particularly in relation to complex investigation. There are serious questions about the capacity

and capability of the Ombudsman's office, in particular with relation to complaints involving

legal issues.

There has been concern in parliament for many years that the Ombudsman service fails to

deliver justice and drive reform in public services. This concern is now shared vociferously by

members of the public with the presence of an active pressure group, damning reports from the

Patients Association and over 96,000 signatures collected by a Which? campaign to improve

public service complaint handling.

The original flaw in Ombudsman legislation was a lack of definition regarding the nature of the

term maladministration. If there are no criteria for determining maladministration then how

can a lay person investigate a complaint? Similarly, lack of power to enforce recommendations,

no statutory duty to monitor in order to drive reform and the total discretion to act however the

Ombudsman sees fit, has left this body ineffective and unaccountable.

Many reports confirm that both the public and parliament lost confidence that the Ombudsman

has the ability to deliver an effective service to the public, hold government bodies to account

and implement reform focused on structure and administration. There is increasing pressure

from service users for improvement of processes and public accountability. After half a century,

and much debate, they have an opportunity to take action and get it right.

Conclusion

Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) received a notice that

if they did not take action on an outstanding complaint instead of stonewalling it, then


complaints would be filed against them collectively. Since that time, the system has changed

and the complaints will need filing against each of them individually. The case studies address

egregious individual behaviour that supports complaints against each of them.

In response to a complaint with comprehensive substantiation (02 Oct 08), LCS and SRA

employees issued outrageous general denials. They have based those denials upon false and

misleading information in a deliberate plan to obstruct justice. That obstruction effectively

granted impunity for Kirby and Mincoff to do as they please for more than six years since the

filing of the SRA complaint.

Thompsons Solicitors received a £250,000 retainer from NUJ to provide legal services to NUJ

members and now employs Claire S Kirby #21078 former NUJ In-house solicitor. Roy Martin

Mincoff #112029, current NUJ In-house solicitor, arbitrarily and discriminatingly decides for

political expedience which NUJ members receive legal support from Thompsons despite

entitlement to legal representation existing as a condition of NUJ membership. Without any

legal authority he changes rules then retroactively forges minutes to support his actions.

Rules and legal ethics that govern behavior by solicitors require them to avoid conflicts of

interest and other unethical practices. When they violate any of those rules they commit

professional misconduct and, after a disciplinary hearing, can suffer suspension or disbarment

from practice. After reading the extensive evidence against Mincoff presented to SRA over a

four-year period, a reasonable person must ask why SRA repeatedly stonewalls investigation

of a pattern or practice of alleged criminal behavior and gross professional misconduct that

could establish probable cause for Mincoff’s disbarment.

Kirby did not provide a duty of care in violation of Vienna Conventions and allowed the

unlawful jailing of Complainant in Seattle. Former HM Consul David C Broom (with whom

Kirby neglected to file papers) colluded with a corrupt judge which resulted in Complainant

(then 70 years of age) suffering solitary confinement, torture and a heart attack. Broom now

resides in Norwich under the auspices of the Bishop of Norwich. Broom has received no

retribution and HM Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has not made reparation to the

Complainant.

In a distinct conflict of interest (while NUJ represented the Complainant as amicus curiae in the

Washington State Supreme Court action) Mincoff negotiated a Labour government payoff of

£262,000 to cover up the dereliction by Kirby and FCO. John Toner, UK Freelance Organiser

and Philip Sutcliffe, NUJ NEC officer prevented the Complainant from knowing about that

payoff while feigning to support him at a meeting in the House of Commons with his MP

(Gareth Thomas) ostensibly to address the issues in Washington State. Thomas participated

in that deception.

Instead of applying the quid pro quo toward legal support for the member, NUJ officials

distributed it as expenses and fees to NUJ officers under a suspect “educational program”.

Mincoff has since covered up Broom’s neglect of his duty of care as consul. By that, Mincoff

arguably became an accessory after the fact to Broom's dereliction in Seattle effectively

condoned by the Bishop of Norwich who has granted him "sanctuary".


Christopher Graham Wheal, an NUJ officer and Chair, NUJ Professional Training Committee,

also Chair, NUJ Extra (Charity) and Sutcliffe financially benefitted from that quid pro quo.

Threats by Wheal and abuse by Sutcliffe form part of an organized campaign of derogation and

agism orchestrated by Jeremy Dear (former NUJ General Secretary) since NUJ received the

government grant.

Wheal received a routine media release as do all NUJ officers, staff and several thousand

members under an opt-out program. He did not request that his name be removed from the

mailing list. The Complainant neither had any previous contact with Wheal nor did he write

about him or refer to him in any way.

[Grievous Bodily Harm]

[Quid Pro Quo]

Complainant reported to Metropolitan Police (Lewisham) that Wheal committed a criminal

offense by threatening grievous bodily harm against an NUJ member in violation of Protection

from Harassment Act 1997. Neglect by MPS properly to investigate the grievous bodily harm

threat by Wheal became subject to investigation by Independent Police Complaints Commission

(IPCC). Mincoff, evidently acting in behalf of Wheal, filed backdated malicious criminal

complaints against Complainant as a "retroactive preemption" which MPS used to delay and

obstruct justice.

[IPPC Complaint - Di Fabio]

The original complaint filed with SRA contained information on a series of Internet

denial-of-service attacks that Mincoff did not address in his resolution document. During the

four weeks preceding the filing, the actual and collateral damage amounted to over $150,000.

Mincoff has maliciously caused costs since the SRA filing through barratry which exceed an

estimated £200,000 for which the listed SRA individuals must hold joint and several liability.

[Without Let or Hindrance - The Sequel]

Mincoff’s complicity in cyber crime increased the cost to over £500,000 during 2008; however,

SRA continues to evade the issues. Another denial-of-service attack (24 Apr 11) retaliated for

reporting issues that SRA had not addressed and the Wheal incident to Metropolitan Police

Service (MPS). That completed a pattern or practice of international Internet crimes sanctioned

by Mincoff. That incident alone cost £14,400 to repair not including loss of publication

revenues and destruction and restoration of mailing lists.

Internet attacks have continued for the four years that SRA has failed to address the complaint.

The cost in systems and mailing system repairs, also the replacement and reprogramming of

damaged computers, exceeds £1,000,000. In addition to the Internet attacks by his associates,

Mincoff filed false and misleading criminal charges against Complainant with two MPS divisions

as “retroactive preemption” of complaints already filed with MPS against NUJ. Mincoff has also

maliciously released private member information protected by Data Protection Act to third


parties including police officers also forged NUJ minutes and removed access to them to cover

up his professional misconduct.

In a conflict of interest, SRA employees have acted in a consort with rogue solicitors subject to

a complaint. Moreover, they have shown a total lack of respect, knowledge of the principles and

procedures necessary to handle a complaint and have stonewalled investigation of the issues

to evade due process of law.

Evidentiary case studies, have been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authority. They will

also form part of an addendum to the Petition for Public Inquiry filed with Kenneth Clarke QC,

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. SRA bureaucrats do not qualify as solicitors

or barristers and have refused to reveal their job functions or CVs that show experience and

qualifications to act as investigators or make legal determinations on complex issues. LeO has

done nothing during the past 4 years to mitigate which accounts for the escalation of the

problems and costs.

SRA Executive Dereliction

Two of the principals in the delay and denial of justice, Antony Townsend and John Norton lay

claims to experience for their present positions as:

Antony Townsend

Townsend took up his SRA post in 2006, having been Chief Executive at the General Dental

Council (GDC) from 2001. At the GDC he led a large reform programme to modernize dental

regulation involving legislative, structural and operational change and including the extension

of regulation to new groups of dental professionals. Before that Townsend held a number of

senior roles at the General Medical Council, including Director of Standards and Education

also Head of Conduct. He now hides out at Professional Standards Authority after leaving a trail

of havoc at SRA.

John Norton

Norton, one of six legal ombudsmen, worked as an investigator and customer services manager.

Since 2005, he worked with Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), first as a

Deputy Senior Investigator then he managed casework and customer services. Most recently

his role at IPCC focused on organizational planning and change management. Earlier in his

career he investigated serious drugs importation and commercial fraud for the former HM

Customs and Excise.

Neither Townsend nor Norton claim university degrees or to have read law. Incredibly, they

tried to manipulate the complainant who has read law for 71 years and qualifies for the bar in

several US states, has two PhD(ABD) degrees at leading US universities with 25 years

experience as a CEO and 25 years as a university professor. As professor emeritus and public

intellectual, he now investigates elder abuse, university and trade union corruption also

bureaucratic fraud. He has found that neither Townsend nor Norton hold qualifications which

entitle them to investigate malfeasance and professional misconduct by rogue solicitors.


Moreover, none of their staff have provided requested information to show that they hold

qualifications to make legal determinations in misconduct proceedings.

The public has put up with Sampson and is now lumbered with Hawkins who published

dubious academic credentials as a "visiting professor" which he has neglected to substantiate.

Law Society Gazette claimed: "He is a visiting professor at the Institute of Criminal Justice

Studies at the University of Portsmouth" when he is only eligible for a position as a visiting

lecturer.

Visiting or honorary professor appointees must currently be professors at another university.

An application containing a curriculum vitae of the individual and a cover letter from a

proposer within the home university is necessary. The designation `'visiting'` may then be

attached to any of the academic or research post titles current in the university.

A visiting post is conferred in recognition of work equivalent in standing to that expected of the

grade in question. Stress is placed on equivalence with clear recognition that this may extend

beyond conventional academic criteria to embrace standing in industry, commerce or the public

or voluntary sector. That professional achievement does not do away with the need for

academic qualifications and experience; instead, it adds to them.

Hawkins, has ignored requests to support his claims and has not disclosed whether he has any

academic degree whatsoever. To those academicians who have spent upwards of ten years and

$500,000 to earn PhDs and professorial positions, Hawkins posturing ranks as an affront

especially as he is double-dipping at public expense. It looks like pointy-heads are now making

backhand deals with bureaucrats. How can any ombudsman complainant trust what Hawkins

says when he cannot even be truthful about his own academic credentials.

Hawkins used Sangha to cover his ass with an obsequious suggestion instead of a forensic

inquiry into fraud during the Sampson regime. Louise Hopkins has done the same thing by

publishing a fatuous finding without any attempt to address the evidence.

After an extensive background check, her only qualifications amount to:

Louise is an experienced manager, starting her career in the utilities sector and working

as a Senior Account Manager. She has several years experience in complaints

resolution work in the regulatory sector working for The Law Society's Legal Complaints

Service as a Senior Caseworker. She joined the Legal Ombudsman in August 2010 and

was involved in training staff prior to our opening. She led a team of Investigators and

worked on projects before being appointed an Ombudsman in September 2013.

With Hopkins in charge, Claimant does not have to satirize this "judgment" as she has written

his copy for him. God help us, with the LeO chief executive officer posing as a professor and

this bimbo as his subliterate ombudsman de jure.


Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti.*

30 November 2015.

Legal Ombudsman Case #201407111.

You have asked us to review the "jurisdiction decision" relating to your complaint about

Widdows Mason (the Firm). I have looked at the file and reviewed the documents and

evidence contained in it. In addition, I have taken into account the information that you

have provided. I am satisfied that the decision that your case is not within our

jurisdiction is the correct one.

The rules under which we operate, called our Scheme Rules are legally binding on us.

You can find a copy of our Scheme Rules on our website. I understand that you have

had issues with your property. You have indicated you are not happy with the firm

because they have not progressed your case. From the evidence provided to the Legal

Ombudsman we understood that the firm were not acting for you in relation to this

disrepair claim, so we advised you that we were not able to accept your complaint.

You have responded to our decision to express your dissatisfaction and you have

referred us back to your skeleton argument and other documentation you had

previously sent us. I have reviewed a lot of key documentation that you provided.

Having done so, I note you make the following statement in your skeleton argument:

“The issues relate to complaints to Chester & District Housing Trust (Sanctuary

Housing Association), National Grid Gas and SSE Energy Supply that have been on the

Widdows Mason client books for almost three years without them taking any action

despite an urgent health and safety need.”

It seems you have been through a difficult time; however, you have provided no

evidence to demonstrate the firm represented you in a legal matter. Although you say

you met with the firm to try and resolve the issues you had; that does not mean they

provided you with a legal service. You have clearly explained in your correspondence,

that the firm were representing other parties. Without evidence to satisfy me that the

firm were actually representing you, I am satisfied our decision to deem your complaint

out of jurisdiction was the right one.

I can see from your skeleton argument that you feel there has been a conflict of interest

and you have commented on the status of people working at the firm. It is therefore

open to you to notify the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority of your concerns. They can

then decide whether any regulatory action needs to be taken against the firm.

I am sorry you are unhappy that there was no name on the bottom of some of our

letters. The reason for that is in the first instance, our Assessment Centre review

complaints and no single person is allocated a case; that is until we are certain we can

accept the complaint.


You have referred to wanting this office to provide you with information and you

mention making a Freedom of Information request. In order for us to properly consider

a Freedom of Information request, you would need to contact our Compliance Team in

the first instance.

I appreciate my decision may come as a disappointment to you, and I am sorry we are

unable to assist you further.

Louise Hopkins, Ombudsman.

A judgment rendered by one who is not the proper judge is of no force.*

LeO accepted this case 18 months ago without any sign of an independent ombudsman

addressing the issues. It has already cost the Claimant more than £50,000 in time and

expenses. Those costs resulted from barratry through false and misleading, arbitrary decisions

by LeO staff and officers in attempts to get-out-of-jail-free without having to use a qualified

independent ombudsman.

Conflict of Interest

Hopkins refers to conflict of interest then acts in that mode herself. There are so many

contradictions in her “decision” that it would take another 500 words to explain them. She has

no basic writing or legal skills; however, as she has opened the door the term “conflict of

interest” needs defining although a reasonable person would expect an ombudsman already

to know what it means.

It refers to a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple financial or

political interests any one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or

organization. It is independent of the occurrence of impropriety and must be discovered and

voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. It is a set of circumstances that create a risk

that professional or legal judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly

influenced by a secondary interest.

Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection

of clients, the integrity of research and the duties of public office. Secondary interests include

not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and

nepotistic favours. Conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial and nepotistic

relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible and quantifiable.

Secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when

they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict exists whether

or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest if the

circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence)

to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by them. Everything that LeO does

seems to be point toward the secondary interests both financial and political and in this case

totally devoid of any legal or moral compass.


LeO cherry-picks simple cases to give the illusion that they have improved overall performance

and met key performance indicators (KPI) when all that they have done is to arbitrarily bin

more complex cases. KPI quantifiable measures and targets demonstrate how effectively they

are working, which in this case gives the illusion that they are providing a high quality of

service to all their customers. In fact, they prejudice the more important and time consuming

cases by increasing costs to such an extent with anonymous, fatuous arguments and arbitrary

decisions by barratry to bankrupt Complainant or at least force him to drop the case.

Barratry, means the illegal practice of persistently altering the continuum of complaint content

and repeatedly asking for clarification without legal merit solely to harass an opponent and

bankrupt him then accusing him of harassing staff and “rudeness” a term which this Author

had stipulated out in a unanimous decision by nine US supreme court judges as legally

undefinable!

LeO frivolously claims to publish key performance indicators (KPI) on a quarterly and yearly

basis and that they cover the five areas of their performance measured against timeliness,

quality, cost, reputation and impact which sounds more like an educational term evaluation

of student performance on arbitrary whims of a teacher instead of determination of serious

legal issues based upon evidence.

Consequently, Complainant has informed his MP with a view to commencing a public inquiry

into the conflicts of interest evident at LeO. He will claim that LeO cherry-picks easy cases then

arbitrarily bins others to create a fudged claim that they met annual targets. So much for the

equity claimed by LeO. By these tactics, used over the past four years, they have increased the

costs to Complaint to well over the maximum £50,000 compensation allowable.

The issues of the last four years need an independent public inquiry, not another ombudscam.

The following information published in Law Society Gazette about Sampson by Sangha (13 May

15) demonstrates moral turpitude.

In November, ombudsman chief executive Adam Sampson left his post after the NAO

tried to qualify last year’s annual report. The report was delayed by more than eight

months while the accounts were re-examined to look again at “irregular expenditure”

totaling £22,300. Ministry of Justice permanent secretary Ursula Brennan said in

January that Sampson received £10,600 in travel expense allowances between 2009

and 2012, and added that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) intends to recover

expenditure outside the scope of its policies. Sampson has denied any wrongdoing. OLC

rejected a freedom of information request from Law Society Gazette to know how much

money has been recovered from Sampson and what amount is still outstanding.

The planned budget for the 2015/16 financial year is £14.84m, of which £2.63m is set

aside for the new claims management complaints jurisdiction. The budget for 2014/15,

when LeO dealt only with complaints about law firms, was £13.87m. The response also

rejected a request to know how much Sampson has been paid since he left the

organisation. According to the organisation's last annual report, Sampson, who was on

a salary of £130,972 a year, had a contract that provided for six months’ notice from


his resignation. In response to the freedom of information request, OLC compliance

officer Gurmit Sangha said the information could be withheld until the publication of

the 2014/15 annual report.

Sangha said: “I cannot justify the public interest in disclosure against the public

interest in permitting public authorities to publish information in a manner, form and

at a time of their own choosing, to ensure effective conduct of public affairs.” (sic) The

last annual report appeared in January this year, six months after it was originally due.

An anonymous comment in response to that article describes precisely the attitudes and

behaviour of Sangha in the Widdows Mason case:

Anonymous (14 May 2015 03:58 pm)

There is absolutely a need for the Ombudsman. However, on too many occasions the

staff of the Ombudsman are inept, incompetent and illiterate and these inadequacies

“fail” both the “consumer”, the profession and the public at large. We had an

investigator give an “initial view”, before seeing any evidence or our response that the

complaint would be upheld and then going on to ask for evidence that we provided

incorrect advice and a poor service. I complained that this amounted to actual bias as

the investigator had prejudged the issue and in asking us to, in effect, self incriminate.

Mr Sangha's consideration was that there was no evidence of bias or that we had been

asked to self incriminate, despite the very same request from the investigator. If there's

a morale crisis at the Ombudsman I'd suggest that there are likely to be other causes

than an unusual expenses regime.

[Law Society Gazette - John Hyde]

Editorial Note

Contra Cabal does not normally publish information by anonymous authors; however, in this

case the Editor has made an exception due to the importance of the comment and the previous

publication by Law Society Gazette. LeO uses more secrecy than the East German Stasi despite

its disingenuous claims to the contrary.

We are a member of the Ombudsman Association and apply seven key principles which

support our scheme and which people can rely on when using our services.

clarity of purpose

accessibility

flexibility

openness and transparency

proportionality

efficiency and quality outcomes"

For example, after eighteen months of handling the case in secrecy without identifying any staff

members or the ombudsman handling the case, Hopkins suddenly appears out of the

woodwork with a diatribe which would get a first year law student expelled.


The Author hopes that Kathryn Stone OBE, the new Chief Ombudsman for the Legal

Ombudsman knows what she has bought into and has more integrity than exhibited by her

“colleagues” during the past four years; however, he will not hold his breath while waiting.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[The more things change, the more they remain the same.]


The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors Regulation ...The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors...

Documents

Transcript of The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors Regulation ...The Legal Ombudscam (LeO) - Solicitors...