Earthlinggb's Blog

Come on! Spar with me you impotent Barrister!

Posted in Law by earthling on August 10, 2013

This goes out to ALL of you little caped “crusading” creeps that sit in your “Inns”. You upholders of total shit! You corrupt goons of “law”. You wearers of red bras and g-strings under your cloaks (the male robe wearers) and your strap on dildos under yours (the women robe wearers).

You sickening pieces of human filth which prop up this crass, anti-human agenda by your dealing in “persons” and fiction. You “Honourable” bastards.

 

I challenge any fcuking one of you disdainful, arrogant, up your own arse, tossers to spar with me on this point about the “person”, human rights and whether, as a “right”, the right to be recognised as a person may be waived! Oh I KNOW “it can’t!” And that is PRECISELY why your human rights shit means shit! You bunch of incompetent, cloak and wig wearing, little arseholes!

But my guess is you “won’t stoop as low as to debate such a “guttersnipe” as I am I right? Great excuse you little bastards!

 

As for the legislators – the “government” – FUCK YOU! Policed by consent indeed. Well I do not consent to being forced to accept a “right”. It is a total logical fallacy and, as well you know, a scam which is genocidal in nature your bunch of fcuking tossers!

 

Apologies to all those of you who get ever so upset at language. But you obviously don’t understand how hard you’re getting fcuked up the ass by these people otherwise the use of the WORD “fcuked” would pale into insignificance in comparison with your recognition of how hard you’re actually being fcuked at the hands of these little fcukers!

 

Twats

 

To: Elizabeth Elbro, ustych@5essexcourt.co.uk

Elizabeth,

Does the “law” uphold its own Human Rights Act of 1998? Answer that question for yourself.
I’ll assume you say of course it does!
Ok, then check out Article 6.
The UK’s own version of the Human Rights Act (1998)
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.They’re quite “brilliant” aren’t they? It does not state: “Everyone has the right to recognition before the law”. It states “Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.

IF IT IS A “RIGHT” THEN EVERYONE (BAR NONE) HAS THE “RIGHT” TO WAIVE THAT “RIGHT”.

Now, Elizabeth, just answer the question for yourself very logically. Is it or is it not a “right”? Now, since it is a “right” (written in their very own document) then a “right” is all about being able to ENFORCE such a right AND, alternatively, being able to waive it. For if one cannot waive their “rights” then they are not “rights” at all but, once more, enforced demands.
So, if I have a “right” to be recognised before a court as a “PERSON”, I also have a “right” to waive that “right” and NOT be recognised before the law as a person. Now, that is PRECISELY what I wish to do: NOT be recognised as a PERSON before a court but simply as a human being! As a Human being (and I assume you have heard of the “human race”?) we are all one race and, as such and as the human rights act TRIES to portray – we are all subject to the law EQUALLY therefore, it should not matter if we are gay, straight, black, white, British, non-British, Asian, disabled, pregnant etc.
Therefore, WHY do you think, does the legal ombudsman send me a letter asking all of these questions? There should be ONE question. “Are you a human being”? Period!
Now, I realise why the “person” is used by the law and by government for legislation. It is to categorise “persons”. The legal personhood is, fundamentally categorised by nationality and then it is sub-divided into multiple other categories. This is the very nature, or genesis, of Alex Ustych’s points he made regarding my ability to win my case and the reason why he assessed I had less than 50% chance.
So, the legal ombudsman simply looks at the law as it is and makes its assessment of things based upon what that law is. It doesn’t question the law. It just maintains it.
My point though is this: By disallowing me to represent myself as a “non person” and waive my fundamental – so called – “right” to my personhood, the law, and Alex Ustych, the government, the courts and the legal ombudsman are ALL in breach of my “human rights”. Such being the case, I should take you ALL to court. The problem is that it is the court system itself breaching them. Further, if I represent myself as a human and not as a person then the court will not recognise me as existing and, therefore, I shall have no standing in court to file my complaint!
Now isn’t that just the most incredible conundrum Ms Elbro? 😉
And the thing is Ms Elbro, is that your government, your judiciary, your MP and all that rule your life (for you are nothing but a subject – a nice word for a tax slave) know this to be true.
You want it in their own words? Then have a read:

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

And our esteemed Mr Ustych knows all of this. If he doesn’t then he should not have that robe! But the thing is, he’s quite happy supporting it. After all, he makes a fortune out of it!
You see, they deal in fictions. You, Ms Elbro, are such – a LEGAL FICTION.
Alex Ustych looked at the “laws” which relate to legal fictions and they told him that homosexual, pregnant, female, ethnic minorities are more protected than the white, straight, male variety. Every one of them could have the same contract terms as I did but the “law” would protect some legal fiction’s “rights” over others. Ignore we are all humans Ms Elbro because there is no such thing as “human rights”, only “legal person’s” privileges!
Isn’t that right Alex? Come on son, answer me so I can quote you on it! 😉 But I guess not eh? More than your jobs worth! Just keep breaching my human rights by not allowing me to waive my rights and bring that into court and keep treating me as the person. The more I think about what you uphold Alex, the more it makes me sick lad!
As for you Elizabeth, I am sure the cognitive dissonance will kick in on reading this. It does with you all.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”  Upton Sinclair.
But sure, if either one of you have the integrity to sincerely wish to protect my human rights and uphold the law as it is written (and you cannot argue with the fact that it IS written) then you get me in front of a judge and you support my case!
If you lose your job, I assure you, there’s lots of others out there! Ever packed shelves?
Regards,
Earthling

 

 

 

To: Elizabeth Elbro

Elizabeth,

You could not help to resolve the complaint unless you were capable of taking what is on record – Mr Ustych’s claim that I do not have a greater than 50% chance of winning due to my not being a pregnant woman, a gay or an ethnic minority then noting what is also on record that my ex employer breached contract – and ensuring that Mr Ustych was made aware that all of this is HIS own words and also that such cannot possibly then suggest I have less than 50% chance of winning my case UNLESS the British judiciary system IS discriminatory. The unfortunate thing is, the judiciary system IS discriminatory and Mr Ustych is correct. So what would the legal ombudsman then do? Take on the British judicial system for the corrupt entity that it is? When the legal ombudsman comes under the entire judicial system as a government department? Is the legal ombudsman naive or does it just, by way of providing lip service to people like me, think we are incompetent?
You could do whatever you wish to help resolve my complaint but there is nothing you can do which would actually achieve anything!
If you have read what I have sent to you then you can see quite clearly that I have put my issues to both, the pro bono section, Mr Ustych and Mr Green. The issues are CLEAR! Do you see any concern and any response to me?
In those emails, I am directly talking to Mr Ustych. It may not be in the “form” you wish it to be but, to be frank, “form” has nothing to do with substance. These people know precisely what that substance is and if they have not responded to it then I can assure you, a “correctly formed” communication (and what is correctly formed? What the LEGAL system itself tells me is correctly formed? The entire legal system is corrupt for god’s sakes!) will be given lip service.
Pardon me for saying this Elizabeth, but I do not know your age but I assume you are quite young. With the very best intention, you have a LOT to learn.
Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject: RE: Your complaint about Mr Ustych
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:38:17 +0000

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your email regarding your complaint about Mr Ustych.

 

I have noted all that you say and understand that you do still have concerns about the barrister that represented you in your employment matter.

 

I want to reiterate that I do not wish to sound unhelpful or awkward at all because I genuinely do want to help you and Mr Ustych to resolve your complaint.  However, in line with our Scheme Rules we have to give the barrister an opportunity to consider and respond to your complaint in the first instance before we will investigate your complaint.  This is why when you initially contacted us my colleague asked you whether you had already made a complaint to Mr Ustych directly and you told us that you had done so.  On this basis we agreed to look into your complaint and the complaint was passed to me to investigate.

 

The first thing I have to do as part of my investigation is to obtain evidence that a complaint has previously been made to the barrister and he has been given eight weeks in which to deal with your complaint.  This is the same with all complaints that we accept.  You kindly sent to me some emails and letters in relation to your complaint and contact made with your MP and the pro bono unit.  However, amongst these papers unfortunately I was unable to locate your complaint to Mr Ustych.

 

If you have already made a formal complaint to Mr Ustych then please let me have a copy by noon on Monday 5 August 2014.  I will then happily continue with my investigation.

 

However, if you have not yet made a formal complaint then this is not a problem and does not mean that we can’t look into your complaint.  All we would ask you to do is now make a formal complaint to the barrister and I would be happy to give you the contact details and more information about how to do this.  Once you have made a formal complaint to the barrister and given him eight weeks in which to respond then if you remain unhappy you can return to me and we can then commence an investigation into your complaint.

 

I hope that this is clear but if you have any questions please feel free to email me and I will respond as best as I can to help you.

 

In the event that I have not received any evidence from you of your formal complaint to the barrister by noon on Monday 5 August 2013 I am afraid that I will have to close my file down until you have made a formal complaint to the barrister.  I will write to you at this stage to confirm this.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

 

 

From: Earthling
Sent: 31 July 2013 11:54
To: Elizabeth Elbro
Subject: RE:
Importance: High

 

Dear Elizabeth,

 

I was simply calling to say I have no confidence in the entire system. It is corrupt from top to bottom and, as such, the Legal Ombudsman is too. “You” have no “teeth” and you’re not meant to have. You also fall for that phoney positive discrimination tactic yourselves as I saw with a letter coming through my door from you asking questions regarding my sex, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion etc. None of this being of ANY importance whatsoever if one is treated as a “person” like all others and, as such, is equal before the law. This, after all, is entirely what my complaint was about: That I am being positively discriminated against because of my colour, sex and sexual orientation. I find it incredible how difficult this is for people to recognise.

Our system of law is corrupt from its very basis Elizabeth and our courts and our government trample our Human Rights because, literally, such things do not exist.

 

I am sorry but I shall take up no more of your time (or mine). Your organisation is impotent to achieve anything of any real worth.

 

Please don’t take this personally.

 

Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:48:26 +0000

 

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your voicemail this afternoon. I am sorry I  have been caught up with another complaint all afternoon and haven’t had chance to return your call.  However, I wanted to let you know that I have put you in diary and will give you call in the morning if that suits you.

 

Please feel free to give me a time when you will be available and I will do my best to call as near to that time as possible.

 

I shall look forward to speaking to you tomorrow.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

To: Earthling
Picture of Elizabeth Elbro

Dear Mr Earthling

 

I email in relation to your complaint about Mr Ustych.  I have today been looking through the emails and information that you have already provided to me in relation to your complaint which has been helpful.

 

I note that when you previously spoke to us you mentioned that you had made a formal complaint Mr Ustych on 10 May 2013 but I do not appear to have a copy of this.  Could you please let me have a copy?  If this is not the correct date upon which you made your formal complaint to the barrister then please send me a copy of your letter / email of formal complaint to him.  This should state that you wish to complain about Mr Ustych and set out the exact nature of your complaint so that the barrister or his chambers could respond.

 

I have seen your emails to the pro bono unit and Mr Ustych but these would not in themselves constitute a formal complaint.  As you may be aware before we are able to commence an investigation into a complaint we have to see evidence that the lawyer has received a formal complaint from the complainant and the lawyer has had a period of eight weeks in which to respond.  I am eager to commence my investigation and do not want to encounter any problems along the way by not ensuring that a formal complaint has already been made, so I would be grateful if you could please let me have a copy of your formal letter of complaint to Mr Ustych as soon as possible.

 

In the event that having looked through your papers you feel that you perhaps have not yet made a formal complaint to Mr Ustych then this is not a problem.  We can still investigate your complaint it just means that we would first ask you to make a formal complaint to the barrister and wait for his response in the first instance.  I can give you more information about how to do this if necessary and who to contact with your formal complaint.

 

I would be grateful if you can please respond to me at your earliest convenience with the information / evidence I have requested so that I can proceed with my investigation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

To: Earthling
Picture of Elizabeth Elbro
To: elizabeth.elbro@legalombudsman.org.uk

Ms Elbro,

The reality is that there is a more fundamental problem with our courts and law system where they are literally being discriminatory by way of positive discrimination. This is what Mr Ustych was pointing out and he is correct. My complaint about Mr Ustych (and you as Ombudsman obviously recognise that the complaint has validity) stating as he does is actually abhorrent but, the fact is, it is true.
The legal ombudsman administers on the basis of the existing legal system. The existing legal system is absolutely corrupt in practice and, in fact, by positive discrimination as the barrister directly infers, the courts (a public organisation which is meant to serve the public without favour to any party) are contravening the Human Rights Act 1998.
Now, my case did not get to court so it cannot be said that the court directly contravened the act BUT my case did not get to court because my barrister advised that, by way of the court’s (law/judge’s) view of me, they WOULD contravene the Human Rights Act.
This issue is bigger than you thought Ms Elbro and I sincerely hope you consider it and treat it as such.
Regards,
Earthling

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your email in relation to your complaint about Mr Ustych.  I am sorry that I missed your call I am afraid I had popped out of the office for lunch and am now heading off to a meeting.

 

I am grateful for your responses to my questions as below which are really helpful for my investigation and your subsequent three emails attaching evidence in support of your complaint and further information.

 

I am expecting a response to arrive from Mr Ustych shortly and I will then be going through all of the evidence and information provided by you both before I make any decisions about the level of service provided.  At that stage I will of course be in contact with you again to share my views or ask further questions of you.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

 

 

From: Earthling
Sent: 24 July 2013 13:13
To: Elizabeth Elbro
Subject: RE: Your complaint about your barrister
Importance: High

 

Dear Ms Elbro,

 

I have just picked up your email today as it was one which got caught by my spam filter and ended in junk mail. I apologise for the delay in response then.

I have tried calling you but there was no answer.

To answer your questions:

 

1. I did not approach the barrister in fact. I met with my MP, Damian Green, who I had sign a referral to the Bar pro bono unit. The unit then assessed my documents and decided they would offer assistance. It was Mr Ustych, then, who picked up on my case and I was advised to contact him to discuss. In doing so, Mr Ustych suggested a skype call rather than a face to face meeting the following week. This was due to me residing in Ashford, Kent and he, of course, in London.

 

2. Yes the barrister advised me of the prospects of my case. This was either during the first call we had on 15th March or the second call on 12th April.

 

3. The only written advice the barrister gave was in the form of a drafted “Letter before claim” which I then sent to my ex company’s solicitors. I have attached this and the “Without Prejudice” letter he also drafted.

 

4. Since the communications of my complaint(s) are in email format, it is best I send then as forwards to you. I shall do this directly after sending this email.

 

Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject: RE: Your complaint about your barrister
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:56 +0000

Dear Mr Earthling

 

I email in relation to your complaint about your barrister.

 

I am pleased to tell you that I am the investigator that will be looking into your complaint.  I have attached a letter which sets out your complaint and asks you to please let me have some information and evidence to help me with my investigation.

 

I hope to hear from you with the evidence and information I have requested by 24 July.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

 

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Gazz said, on August 15, 2013 at 7:20 am

    Hello again earthlinggb. I hope you don’t mind my using some of your material in a video I’ve made. You can view it at this link ~ http://trutube.tv/user/watch-dis

    If you’re not happy please leave a message here.

    Cheers mate

    G

    • earthlinggb said, on August 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm

      Don’t mind at all Gazz. Good job. The whole idea is to get info out there on as many forums as possible so I’m happy whenever anyone uses anything in any way.

  2. Gazz said, on August 15, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Not a patch on your work but thanks for that . . . after all ~ we’re all in this together heheh.

    Stay well mate – great work 🙂

    G


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: