Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Questions raised over Lord President’s 'draconian' conditions for Scottish McKenzie Friends as English courts reveal guidance 'not obligatory'

Lord HamiltonScotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton. QUESTIONS are being raised over the ‘draconian’ conditions Scotland’s Chief judge, Lord Hamilton, wishes to impose on the use of McKenzie Friends in Scottish civil courts, after it was revealed today by the English Courts system, their own guidance on the usage of McKenzie Friends comes nowhere near the severity of Lord Hamilton’s requirements as noted in his recently released plans to impose harsh qualifications on anyone wishing to assist an unrepresented party litigant as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court.

HMCS Letter 12.03.2010eHMCS (Courts service for England & Wales) reveal McKenzie Friend guidance is informal in England & Wales. The Scottish Courts Service equivalent in England & Wales, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, revealed in a reply to Mr Stewart McKenzie, the McKenzie Friend petitioner that the guidance issued by the President of the Family Division Courts was only informal, and had no actual force of the Rules of Court : “Although the terms of McKenzie friends in England and Wales must be determined by the terms of the ‘President’s Guidance’, it is merely guidance. The Guidance has no force of the Rules of Court. It is neither in the Civil Procedure Rules nor a Practice Direction. It merely sets the principles as defined by case law. Neither the McKenzie Friend nor the Court has to comply with the guidance.”

The response from the English courts service contrasts stunningly with the ‘draconian’ plans of Lord Hamiltion, which I reported in an earlier article, here Exclusive : McKenzie Friends for Scotland ‘are go’ as Lord President yields to Holyrood access to justice petition for Scots court users. While the English courts have found themselves able to work, informally, within their own guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales as laid down in the Family Courts, Lord Hamilton plans to force Scottish McKenzie Friends to sign certificates before the court will even consider allowing them in to assist an unrepresented party litigant.

Lord President to Holyrood - McKenzie Friends a go for June 2010 Page 2Lord Hamilton’s letter to the Scottish Parliament imposes ‘draconian’ requirements on Scottish McKenzie Friends. The focus of the debate in Scotland is now on Lord Hamilton’s plans, taken from his recent letter to the Scottish Parliament which, on the pretext of ‘regulating' McKenzie Friends appearing in a Scottish court, state : “To enable the court to police the behaviour of a lay assistant and, in an extreme case, to exercise a sanction against him or her, the party litigant and the intended lay assistant should complete and sign a certificate to be lodged in process with the motion. The certificate should (i) state the name and address of the intended lay assistant; (ii) give a brief summary of the lay assistant’s relevant experience and state whether he or she is related to the party litigant; (iii) confirm that the lay assistant has no interest in the case and is to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form; and (iv) state the lay assistant’s understanding of the duty of confidentiality and his or her undertaking not to use any documents recovered in the process for any purpose other than the litigation. There would be an appropriate form containing the undertaking with boxes to be completed.”

A political insider at Holyrood today commented on the sharp difference of practice on McKenzie Friends revealed by the English courts service saying he believed the Lord President would have to water down his proposals to fit in with the rest of the country.

He said : “Given the clear indication from the English courts the guidance which applies to McKenzie Friends is not a binding, nor formal process in terms of the rules of the court in England & Wales, I fail to see how the Lord President can enforce such unfair and draconian requirements on those wishing to serve as McKenzie Friends in a Scottish court. This is clearly an inequitable situation for Scots.”

A solicitor in favour of allowing McKenzie Friends in Scotland commented : “The court is hardly effective at policing members of the legal profession who regularly appear in court, and they are supposedly bound not only by the rules of the court but also their professional conduct & service requirements.

He continued : "I don't see why the court should be invoking a regulatory role of sorts on McKenzie Friends if they cannot even keep a tight reign on solicitors or advocates, especially with regard to recent reports of abuses of the court process by members of the legal profession in both civil & criminal cases.”

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations also commented on the HMCS letter to the petitioner, claiming Scots were being left far behind their English counterparts on the McKenzie Friend issue simply because the Scottish legal profession were ‘too used to owning courtroom presence’.

He said : “It is very clear from the response received from HMCS that McKenzie Friends enjoy a more informal, yet effective existence in England & Wales. Given McKenzie Friends have operated in the rest of the country for many years under this system, we would like to see similarly informal, yet effective standards applied in Scotland, with full respect to the same rights & protections which are available to court users & consumers in England & Wales.”

He continued : “ I am sure most of us are under no illusions the legal profession in Scotland simply do not want competition in the court process as they have become too used to owning courtroom presence. However, in the light of the revelations from HMCS, I trust the Scottish Parliament will swiftly undertake discussion on this matter with the Lord President and hopefully persuade him to amend his overly restrictive approach to Scottish McKenzie Friends.”

Which Head of Legal Services - McKenzie Friends for ScotlandUK Consumer organisation Which? also questioned Lord Hamilton’s plans. Lord Hamilton’s plans for McKenzie Friends have also come in for criticism from Which?, recently stating in a letter to the Scottish Parliament : “We do however wish to note several concerns about the proposed implementation of McKenzie Friends and would ask that the Petitions Committee consider these in their deliberations. Namely, we are concerned that Lord Hamilton proposes a McKenzie Friend should be required to have 'relevant experience' and not be related to the litigant. We see absolutely no reason why this information should be requested or relevant in granting permission for a McKenzie Friend. We do not believe, for instance, that a husband or wife should be prevented from acting in this capacity, where the litigant feels this would be helpful. Therefore the proposal that the MF should have no interest in the case is extremely unhelpful.”

You can read more on the letter from Which? in earlier coverage, here : Consumer legal chiefs question Lord Hamilton’s plans for McKenzie Friends as calls grow for fairer deal for Scots court users

The Scottish Parliament during its last hearing on the McKenzie Friend Petition, had resolved to ‘put on hold’ any further discussion on matters until its May hearing, but in the light of the new developments of the HMCS response, consideration of the content and further responses expected to Holyrood in the next few days, along with written representations from MSPs who have also raised questions over Lord Hamilton’s plans, has caused the Petitions Committee to bring forward further debate on the McKenzie Friend petition to its meeting on the 20th April 2010.

To view my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, click here : Bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland's Courts - The story so far

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

It takes 40 years for Lord Hamilton to accept McKenzie Friends can be used in the Court of Session then he tries to kill the whole thing off with rules so strict no one will be accepted as a McKenzie Friend.

Is that the Scottish way of doing things?

If it is then its very backwards!

Anonymous said...

someone should remind Hamilton we live in a democracy NOT a dictatorship

Anonymous said...

Peter.

I think there will have to be some kind of regulations to govern the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland even if the English do it differently.

The fact is if we dont there will be a steady procession of people bringing along anyone they please to sit beside them,which may well irritate the bench so much the whole thing will be stopped mid flight.

Some kind of requirements will have to be built up to ensure McKenzie Friends run as smoothly in Scotland as they appear to do in England and Wales although I think you are probably right about the certificate Lord Hamilton proposes as a requirement.That has to be a non starter.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Good letter from Which?
So where do we go from here and will that useless Parliament actually do something other than talk talk talk ?

Anonymous said...

I admire your tenacity on this issue Mr Cherbi and hope the Scottish Parliament speak up for the electorate this time against bully boy judges and lawyers who want to keep control of the courts for themselves.
If I needed to go to court now I would want a McKenzie Friend instead of some crooked lawyer extorting money out of me for doing nothing.

Anonymous said...

Hamilton what are you afraid of?

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton plans to force Scottish McKenzie Friends to sign certificates before the court will even consider allowing them in to assist an unrepresented party litigant.
-----------------------------------
Mr Hamilton who do you think you are. The courts are there to serve the public not protect the corrupt profession you head.

No conditions, we demand equality because anything else is discrimination, you will find this in your legal books. I am sick of twits like you Hamilton dictating how things are.

William Godwin a famous dissident in 1831 stated "Why should I? such was the language of my solitary meditations, because I was born in a certain degree of latitude, in a certain century, in a country where certain institutions prevail and of parents protesting a certain faith, take it for granted that all is right"?

This applies today as much as it did then. End self regulation, and no conditions only equality on McKenzie friends.

Anonymous said...

"I don't see why the court should be invoking a regulatory role of sorts on McKenzie Friends if they cannot even keep a tight reign on solicitors or advocates, especially with regard to recent reports of abuses of the court process by members of the legal profession in both civil & criminal cases.”

Could you post an example of abuse of court process committed by a lawyer ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 16.29

Its the Scottish legal establishment's way of doing things ... and yes, its backwards !

# Anonymous @ 17.38

If the English system has worked so well for the past few decades ... why not simply transplant it to Scotland ...

Yes, there will be a learning process but it might do the judiciary some good, rather than Scots taking the usual dictations from the judges on what we can or cannot do .. while everyone else seems to have no problem with McKenzie Friends ...

# Anonymous @ 17.59

No doubt all will be revealed in the weeks to come ...

# Anonymous @ 19.26

Yes indeed .. and ending judicial self regulation too ...

# Anonymous @ 20.06

Certainly .. a good example of abuse of court process would be one I discussed with a solicitor today, that of Alan Mackay eloping from the World's End murder trial a day before it collapsed.

You can read more about that here How pressure piled on World's End lawyer who went AWOL which was whitewashed by Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini herself, here Worlds End Statement to Parliament by Lord Advocate

Anonymous said...

Hamilton is like a spoilt child, he and his profession have had things their own way far too long. It's our legal system Hamilton, you are no better that Penman, Mill, a self regulating crook, answerable to no one.

You work in the legal system, your decisions affect peoples lives. Self regulation is an ideology, and a corrupt one. Would you let the Gernams investigate the holocaust or allow sympathisers of Radovan Karadzic to investigate the genocide at Srebrenica. NEVER the Allies managed the war crimes trials and the UN are overseeing the war crimes trial of Karadzec.

I am convinced you would protect lawyers who murdered clients, because you people care only about your own. Lawyers protecting lawyers when complaints are sent to the Law Society of Scotland. This is the reality, as the Penman case and many other demonstrate. None of you are honest enough to work in the legal system.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal System is run by control freaks, headed by Arthur Hamilton.

Anonymous said...

Your example of the prosecutor who ran away from his own court case is just amazing !

Why was he not sacked and why did his boss have the balls to stand up in the legislature and tell everyone everything was ok.

Scotland is very messed up !

Anonymous said...

As far as abuse of the court process goes, Mr Cherbi, I've sat and heard lawyers who are eager to appear on television lying through their teeth.The judge knew it the lawyers for both sides knew it yet nothing was done.

Court is little more than a money making theatre for the crooked.

Anonymous said...

Yet again we arent allowed to have justice in Scotland because having that justice will impact on the greedy lawyers and their judge pals.DISGUSTING!

Bring on McKenzie Friend!

Anonymous said...

The HMCS letter.When you get some time I'd like to see the documents they attached.Put them up when you next write about it.

Good one as always Peter you do Scotland a lot of credit with this campaign style !

Anonymous said...

If Ian Hanger had encountered all these problems back in the 70's we might never have had a McKenzie Friend in existence.
Just as well McKenzie v McKenzie occurred in London and not Edinburgh!

Anonymous said...

If you are looking for examples of bent advocates I know a QC who took 7k cash from a client he was defending on criminal charges while getting legal aid to pay for it!

Anonymous said...

That letter from the English courts shows up Hamilton's plans against McKenzie Friends quite a bit.Good tactic !

Anonymous said...

I always thought McKenzie Friends came from Scotland!
Anyway good to see someone is doing something about it and informing us of our rights.

Keep up the good work

Anonymous said...

It beggars belief that lawyer people who earn a living from this so called justice system have a totally unjust protective complaints system.

That puts these people above the law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

As far as abuse of the court process goes, Mr Cherbi, I've sat and heard lawyers who are eager to appear on television lying through their teeth.The judge knew it the lawyers for both sides knew it yet nothing was done. EVEN IN A CIVIL CASE THE JUDGE IS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS THESE LAWYERS. A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT SUE A LAWYER AS ALL SCOTLANDS LEGAL PROFESSIONALS ARE INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY. THE JUDGES INSURERS WOULD BE PAYING THE DAMAGES.

Court is little more than a money making theatre for the crooked.

CORRECT, THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A SOUTH LANARKSHIRE LAWYER THE COURTS ARE NOT FOR EXPOSING CROOKED LAWYERS, THE LAW SOCIETY/SLCC IS NOT FOR EXPOSING CROOKED LAWYERS, THE CROWN OFFICE TOO DO NOT PROSECUTE LAWYER CRIMINALITY. THE LAWYER I AM REFERRING TO SAID THIS IN A HEATED ARGUEMENT WHEN I TOLD HIM I WANTED MY LAWYER PROSECUTED, NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

THE REAL CRIMINALS IN SOCIETY ARE THE SELF REGULATORS.

Anonymous said...

To all new readers, lawyer Penman and his sidekick Accountant Howitt took Mr Cherbi's estate, £300,000 worth. If they can do that they can take the value of your home, whether it is an ex council home or a mansion.

The Law Society did not prosecute Penman, hence Mr Cherbi's blog, which has injustice in Scotland as it's theme. We are trying to help you as well as ourselves, trust no lawyer. If I robbed a bank of £300,000 I would be tried in a public court by a public jury. Penman and Howitt are not prosecuted because their own profession protect them. They call thei a justice system.

The Law Society and the new (Independent, that is a joke) Scottish Legal Complaints Commission) will cover up what Scotland's lawyers do to you. If you trust a lawyer with all of the internet sites exposing these bastards, you take a great risk.

Anonymous said...

Pleased to see someone has a level head about McKenzie Friends but why are the Scottish authorities being so obstructive on this one ?
Seems very selfish motives on the part of this Lord Hamilton and as you wrote lawyers themselves are not regulated by the court so why should a judge be able to impose even more severe restrictions on a McKenzie Friend than already exist on lawyers ?

Anonymous said...

Judicial dictatorship !!

Anonymous said...

I have been following your reports on McKenzie Friends for some time Mr Cherbi as I myself used the procedure for a custody battle with my ex wife who threw everything at us and lost.

I would recommend having a McKenzie Friend to anyone who feels they can represent themselves.Its miles cheaper and you always know your own case best.

Anonymous said...

SCOTLAND'S LITIGATION SCAM, YOU CANNOT SUE YOUR EMPLOYER IF YOU NEED MEDICAL REPORTS.

Ross Harper your litigation team try to sue their own insurers, as stated on Solicitors from Hell. How corrupt is that Ross Harper Solicitors getting Legal Aid money from taxpayers to sue employers insured by the same company as Ross Harper.

These cases are always stopped in their tracks because Ross Harper know their doctors and their clients employers are insured by the same company as all Scotland's lawyers. Scotland's lawyers you cover up people's occupational injuries to make money.

Scotlands lawyers doctors and employers, are all insured by Royal Sun Alliance. This is why ladies and gentlemen you will never win a litigation case against your employer. The lawyers and doctors get Legal Aid money and hide the true medical evidence you have been injured because their insurers would have to pay your damages.

LAWYERS AND DOCTORS MAY AS WELL BE DIRECTORS OF ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE SURE YOU WILL NOT GET A PENNY COMPENSATION EVEN IF YOU CAN NEVER WORK AGAIN. THEY ARE CORRUPT CROOKED BASTARDS.

Anonymous said...

Would you use a lawyer who had a criminal record? Of course not.

Do you know that

Crown Office admit they don't gather statistics on how many crooked lawyers are prosecuted.

In response to Freedom of Information queries to the Crown Office on the disclosure of statistics engathered relating to charges or prosecutions against members of the legal profession in Scotland, which includes paralegals, solicitors, and anyone working in a solicitor's office, it was disclosed that "The COPFS database has no information routinely recorded indentifying the present (or previous) occupation of accused persons reported for prosecution. We do not extract any information regarding cases in which the accused person is (or was) a solicitor, so do not hold any statistical information which would answer your question."

Well do not trust a lawyer, have a look at www.sacl/info

You will see the faces of the infamous. All lawyers are crooks, don't trust any of Scotlands 12,000 privilidged scoundrels.

Anonymous said...

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Justice Secretary 'hush hush' on criminal records of lawyers as Crown Office claims its too costly to keep details on legal profession's crooks.

Any excuse to protect Scotland's special criminals, of which Mr MacAskill supports 100% because he is a lawyer. It is not too costly in monetary terms to keep records of the Legal Professions crooks it is too costly in reputation terms, correct Crown Office?

Our conclusion, they all have criminal records.

Anonymous said...

THIS IS THE WAY SCOTLANDS LAWYERS WANT TO KEEP THINGS.

For decades before now, Scottish lawyers had regulated their colleagues under the prejudicial cloak of self regulation, ensuring that client complaints were never properly investigated, that many lawyers who had long records of poor conduct & service, even records of negligence, and in some cases serious criminal charges & convictions, remain in practice while vast numbers of clients have lost out financially, have had their lives ruined, even lost their homes & livelihoods while their solicitors had the full protection of their colleagues at the Law Society of Scotland, who have continually ensured that anyone needing to access legal services & the courts in cases which is not in the interest of the legal profession to pursue, has found their access to justice denied and all routes of help blocked, creating an endemic culture of injustice in Scotland while politicians sat back & did nothing.

IF LAWYERS STEAL THE MONEY IN YOUR HOUSE WAVE BY BY TO IT, THE LAW SOCIETY PROTECTED PENMAN, MR CHERBI'S LAWYER. £300,000 VANISHES AND THE LAW SOCIETY PROTECT THE LAWYER RESPONSIBLE. THEY CAN DO THIS TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, BEWARE.

Anonymous said...

Would-be MP banned from making paedophile allegations

Sheriff gets court order to silence abuse claim

By Ryan Crighton Published: 18/03/2010

An Aberdeen sheriff has obtained a gagging order against a would-be MP who has accused him of abusing a young, disabled girl.

Sheriff Graham Buchanan was forced to resort to legal action after Robert Green continued to spread the allegations against him, despite two separate police investigations finding there was no truth in them.

Mr Green, who describes himself as a lay legal adviser, is representing Hollie Greig, who has Down’s syndrome and who alleges that she was systematically abused by a paedophile ring for 14 years from the age of six.

Mr Green has named a number of men and women, including Sheriff Buchanan and a now-deceased former senior policeman, as having taken part in the abuse.

The sheriff’s lawyers, Edinburgh-based Simpson and Marwick, have now successfully applied to the Court of Session in Edinburgh for an interim interdict preventing Mr Green from continuing his campaign.

The interdict also prevents Mr Green from claiming that the sheriff was involved in the “murder” of Hollie’s uncle, Robert Greig, who died in a car fire in 1997.

Strange why did the sheriff not resort to defamation action is Mr Green is wrong? At least the Sheriff can get a law firm to act for him, clients can never get a lawyer to act against another lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Another regular reader here from the USA just wanting to say your blog is great and I too dont trust lawyers one bit !

Anonymous said...

LAWYERS AND DOCTORS MAY AS WELL BE DIRECTORS OF ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE SURE YOU WILL NOT GET A PENNY COMPENSATION EVEN IF YOU CAN NEVER WORK AGAIN. THEY ARE CORRUPT CROOKED BASTARDS.
-----------------------------------
These people are corrupt because self regulation protects them. Distorting the truth is a way of life to them.

Trust me I am a doctor, lawyer. Criminals in white coats and wigs.

Anonymous said...

Thats the trouble with the top judge saying something - he doesn't have a boss so basically he can get away with murder which is why I agree with a previous comment saying "judicial dictatorship" is what we have here in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Justice Secretary 'hush hush' on criminal records of lawyers as Crown Office claims its too costly to keep details on legal profession's crooks.

They can spend a fortune on the Scottish Parliament, but argue it is too costly to keep records of lawyers criminal records. Lawyers with criminal records would have ne clients, that is why MacAskill is Hush Hush, there is transparency here justice secretary.

Anonymous said...

Justice Secretary 'hush hush' on criminal records of lawyers as Crown Office claims its too costly to keep details on legal profession's crooks.

Any excuse to protect Scotland's special criminals, of which Mr MacAskill supports 100% because he is a lawyer.

Good evening Mr MacAskill the Scottish Parliament cost the taxpayer £414.40 million. I am sure it would cost very little to keep details on legal profession's crooks.

Political will Mr MacAskill, your colleagues must be protected at all costs because they would not get clients. Reputations Mr MacAskill, hide the truth to keep the lawyers working.

Anonymous said...

They spend £414.4 million on the Scottish Parliament and argue it is too costly to keep records of lawyers with criminal convictions.

Nonsense, lawyers with criminal convictions would have no clients, that is the real reason.

Anonymous said...

You are doing a brilliant job Peter and we thank you for giving us a voice.

Victory over the Penmans and Howitts of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation, a cover for corruption and greed. A doctrine for protecting your colleagues. A licence to do what you want, Penman £300,000.00 and the Law Society does not prosecute you. EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, BULLSHIT. WOE TO YOU IF YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE, WANT TO LEAVE YOUR KIDS THE MARKET VALUE OF YOUR HOME. ALL OF SCOTLANDS LAWYERS HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION AS PENMAN.

Sheriff Marie Smart in Hamilton Sheriff Court tells a benefit fraudster £4,000.00 is the greatest benefit fraud to come before the court.

What do you think of the protection of Penman Sheriff Smart. £300,000.00 and the Law Society PROTECT PENMAN. WELCOME TO SCOTLAND'S CORRUPT LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE RIGHT DEGREE IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWS YOU TO RUIN A FAMILY WITH IMPUNITY. A JUSTICE SYSTEM MY ASS.

Sheriff Smart knows the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal are meant to prosecute crooked lawyers. I steal £300,000.00 I face the same court as the benefits fraudster, Penman and Howitt steal the same amount of money, no prosecution. Where is the justice? Sheriff Smart also knows crooked lawyers are tried by their own.

A LEGAL SYSTEM FOR LAYPERSONS.

A CROOKED PROTECTION RACKET FOR LAWYERS.

Victory to the dissidents over self regulating criminals.

Anonymous said...

HOW MANY SCOTTISH POLITICIANS WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE SELF REGULATORS?

Anonymous said...

Peter forgive me for my language on your blog, but all lawyers are bastards. You said " No solicitor will stand against another", and you are 100% correct because every law firm will welcome you with open arms until they find out you want one of their brethern prosecuted. Bastards that is what they are. There is another reason. If a lawyer sued another lawyer, the Law Society of Scotland would EXCOMMUNICATE THEM. This last term in this context means end the practicing certificate. One lawyer dealt with my relatives case, I hate all of them, and Peter, Penman that crooked bastard has caused the Law Society, and Douglas Mill's dearly.

A WARNING TO ALL NEW READERS, DO YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE? DO NOT LEAVE ANY OF YOUR FINANCIAL ASSETS WITH A LAW FIRM OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR MONEY.

JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. LAWYERS ARE LEGALISED THIEVES.

Anonymous said...

Peter I have a letter from the Medical & Dental Defence Union of Scotland I will send to you sometime, which demonstrates that accusers of doctors are guilty before trial.

They never took legal action because a member of this union was a former partner of the medical practice accused of corruption.

Anonymous said...

To lawyers who think clients are thick. Think again.

Anonymous said...

40 years Lord Hamilton your profession have blocked McKenzie friends. Here is the shock. That is fourteen thousand six hundred days you Scottish lawyers have interdicted an entire nation, our nation Scotland to protect the incomes of self regulation unaccountable lawyers. 14,600 days of inequality between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is not England Northern Ireland or Wales's fault. It is the corruption of Scottish lawyers like Hamilton who want to control people, so their profession increase their income and hide their corruption. People of Scotland do not leave your money with a Scottish lawyer or you will lose it.

People of Scotland, you don't need corrupt lawyers protected by the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society do not want you to have a McKenzie friend, because lawyers can rob you and the Law Society will protect them. Legal dictatorship, that is what Scottish people have to suffer. But no more your day is coming Lord Hamilton. The word is spreading, and you cannot control five million Scots forever.

Anonymous said...

14,600 days Lord Hamilton. Yes 14,600 days or 40 years of inequality against the people of Scotland and 14,600 days lawyers controlled access to justice. If I live until I am 70 I will have lived 25,550 days. For more than half of a human lifetime you have oppressed the people of this country. Where are the principles of natural justice Lord Hamilton, tell us. Tell us what it is like to be accountable to no one but yourself Lord Hamilton. Tell us what it is like to be in charge of a legal dictatorship.

No one on this planet should be unaccountable because this means human rights will be violated. Answer us Lord Hamilton for all of your dictatorial power, what are you afraid of? You are an insult to justice, a member of a brotherhood who use a system of law to cover up your crimes. Self regulation and tradition give you your position Lord Hamilton. Greater men have walked this earth with less power. Where did you get your power Lord Hamilton, and why should the people of this country agree with you. We the Scottish people are greater than any dictator, and more powerful dictators have fallen than you.

End self regulation Lord Hamilton because if you think this brewing storm will subside you are out of touch with reality. People of Scotland welcome to the mindset of the self regulator.

McKenzie friends can help you but Hamilton wants lawyers incomes protected. TRUST NO LAWYER.

Anonymous said...

FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DAYS MULTIPLIED BY SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK. THIS MEANS THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND HAVE STOPPED MCKENZIE FRIENDS IN SCOTLAND FOR ONE MILLION TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED HOURS. FOR THIS TIME LAWYERS HAVE BEEN CHARGING YOU HUGE SUMS FOR POOR LEGAL SERVICE. IS THIS JUSTICE? NO IT IS BUSINESS.

NO IT IS ABOUT LORD HAMILTON'S BAND OF THIEFS ROBBING YOU OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR POOR LEGAL SERVICE. SCOTTISH CIVIL LAW IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE. IT IS ABOUT BUSINESS. THE LAWYERS DO NOT WANT MCKENZIE FRIENDS BECAUSE THEY WILL LOSE MONEY. THEY DO NOT WANT TESCO LAW BECAUSE THEY WILL LOSE MONEY. MONEY AND LEGAL COVER UP IS WHAT SCOTLANDS LAWYERS CARE ABOUT. THEY DO NOT GIVE A F**K ABOUT YOU THE CLIENT. SUPPORT MCKENZIE FRIENDS, SUPPORT YOURSELVES.

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton wants to bury McKenzie friends. Protect your profession Arthur Hamilton, your are a man of injustice.

Anonymous said...

"“The court is hardly effective at policing members of the legal profession who regularly appear in court, and they are supposedly bound not only by the rules of the court but also their professional conduct & service requirements."

Well said ! and how many lawyers have the judges pulled up over the years ?

HARDLY ANY I'LL BET !