I WANT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH ME FAIRLY: I SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED FOR NO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. I WANT TO UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTERESTS THAT THE COMMON PEOPLE GET FAIR LEGAL SERVICES
Friday, August 12, 2011
LPCC IS NOT MAKING THE RIGHT FINDINGS IN ITS LETTER TO MAURICE LAW DATED 4.8.2011
THIS LETTER IS MARKED PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. THE PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY BELONGS TO MR. LAW. MR. LAW HAS DECIDED TO DIVULGE IT TO ME AND TO THE PUBLIC. SO I AM PRIVILEGED TO SHOW IT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS ABOUT THE INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO MR. LAW, MYSELF AND THE ESTATE OF NANCY HALL. SO THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.
THE LPCC DOES NOT WANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DAVID TAYLOR BUT WANTS TO PROSECUTE ME ON THIS ISSUE IN VR 87 OF 2009. THE LAW ON ABUSE OF PROCESS IS stated in Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co[4] by Lord Bingham: “ “The underlying public interest is … that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not … Properly applied, and whatever the legitimacy of its descent, the rule has in my view a valuable part to play in protecting the interests of justice.”
THIS LETTER IS MARKED PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. THE PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY BELONGS TO MR. LAW. MR. LAW HAS DECIDED TO DIVULGE IT TO ME AND TO THE PUBLIC. SO I AM PRIVILEGED TO SHOW IT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS ABOUT THE INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO MR. LAW, MYSELF AND THE ESTATE OF NANCY HALL. SO THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.
ReplyDeleteTHE LPCC DOES NOT WANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DAVID TAYLOR BUT WANTS TO PROSECUTE ME ON THIS ISSUE IN VR 87 OF 2009. THE LAW ON ABUSE OF PROCESS IS stated in Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co[4] by Lord Bingham:
ReplyDelete“ “The underlying public interest is … that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not … Properly applied, and whatever the legitimacy of its descent, the rule has in my view a valuable part to play in protecting the interests of justice.”