While of course, it would most certainly be difficult to critisise Mrs Ross' qualifications in the legal field, she did of course, make a submission to the previous Justice 1 Committee "Regulation of the Legal Profession" inquiry, in support of self-regulation, arguing that in fact, it was more like independent regulation as it currently stands ... (that's why, no doubt, there are 5000+ complaints a year against solicitors).
Mrs Ross submission to the Justice 1 Committee can be found in adobe acrobat format (pdf), here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice1/inquiries-02/j1-lps-pdfs/lps-056.pdf
Mrs Ross University of Aberdeen Profile can be found here, along with her many accolades, and Committee memberships & more at : http://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/staffmember.php?ID=5
I would have to say, given the precedent which Annabel Goldie set this consideration of the new legislation affecting regulation of lawyers, when she resigned her position as Convener of Justice 2, out of 'conflict of interest' issues, the position of the adviser to the Justice 2 on who gives evidence should surely be occupied by a much more neutral individual than someone who has already stated their opposition to the changes which individuals like myself, campaign groups, and politicians have campaiged for over the years.
I note, for instance, Margaret Ross sits on the "Access to Justice" Committee of the Law Society of Scotland, the name of that Committee being probably one of the biggest jokes in Scottish Law .. "Access to Justice" ... but, what happens when the case is against a fellow member of the Law Society of Scotland .. and thousands of clients throughout Scotland find themselves DENIED 'Access to Justice" ... ? I'm sure Mrs Ross knows all about that side of matters then ... but given her stated support for the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland in terms of their own model of self-regulation ... it cannot be said that her position as adviser to the Committee as to who is called to give evidence - or to decide on the content of written submissions, etc .. would be a position of total transparency ....would it ?
Member of the Law Society screens submissions to the Justice 2 Committee on new legislation to independently regulate members of the Law Society of Scotland & others in the legal profession ? surely, that is, a conflict of interest ... yes ?
Sadly, this Justice 2 Committee inquiry seems to be turning the way of the Justice 1 Committee version - where the legal profession and their political allies, within the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Executive, wreck the terms of the inquiry, limit and restrict the testimony from the public on their dealings with lawyers .. and eventually, of course .. fiddle the outcome, so nothing really happens, and the likes of the Law Society of Scotland are left in charge again .. to leave their membership to plunder and steal from the Scottish public at-will ....
Stewart Mackenzie, who has probably the worst case of difficulties with multiple solicitors & legal firms in Scotland, has asked the Justice 2 Committee to consider Mrs Ross position in the light of this information (as have I), and of course, I will publish the response from Justice 2 when it comes in ... but of course, given the tradition of arrogance within the Scottih Parliamentary Committee system on who does what, I expect no budge on this but with Annabel Goldie's own resignation on grounds of possible conflict of interest (Ms Goldie is a lawyer & therefore a member of the Law Society of Scotland), I don't see how the Justice 2 Committee can justify having additional members of the Law Society of Scotland who are in key positions to determine who gets access to the current Justice 2 inquiry on this Bill .. or, was it set up that way from the very start ? ......
Incidentally, you can read Stewart Mackenzie's Justice 1 Committee submission here : http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice1/inquiries-02/j1-lps-pdfs/lps-024.pdf .. and see for yourselves, how the legal profession in Scotland wrecked his life, health, wealth, etc . and how top Law Society officials such as the Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, conspired with others to fiddle the outcome of settlements & complaints Mr Mackenzie had against lawyers & legal firms ... just in the same way the same Douglas Mill & his cohorts did against my family .. which you have read in earlier posts on this blog ....
In another development I also noticed today, Ameer Anwar has been censured by the Law Society of Scotland for comments he was alleged to have made on a radio phone in ..... you can read about this story in "The Scotsman", here at : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=589292006 article titled "Lawyer fights censure over radio phone in", by John Robertson - Law Correspondent at "The Scotsman"
I have to say I am kind of ... mystified about this ... the Law Society of Scotland will censure Ameer Anwar for what he is alleged to have said on a radio show, but they let their top brass like Joseph Platt and public stars such as Austin Lafferty come on to a BBC radio show with me and lie their guts out ? .. or .. they will come down on Ameer for what he is alleged to have said to a caller, but yet the Law Society will let plenty other lawyers off for faking up files, fiddling & stealing legal aid, robbing the dead, embezzling funds, conning people out of their homes and selling bent mortgages, etc ... it's a bit strange, isn't it .. or is there another motive ? .. maybe if Ameer Anwar is going to make a submission to the Justice 2 Committee on the new Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill .. they might even want to discredit him a bit just in time for the hearings .....
Having read the "Scotsman" article on Ameer Anwar - I wish him "Good Luck" with his Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland .. and well, given Ameer's representation of perhaps .. controversial clients, who shouldn't really be controversial at all, I would think the likes of the Scottish Executive and the big wigs at the Law Society must be looking for any excuse at all to get rid of him ... so this case, is probably s symptom of that ... and the Law Society have went in to get him at all costs ... on something they let their own away with ....
..... tough isn't it ... speak out, or represent the Human Rights of those who are now arbitrarily declared in Society by our 'leaders' & 'spin doctors' not to have such rights .. and you become a target yourself .... well, I know about that of course ... I've been through the mill with the Law Society and all their allies, who used every trick and dirty tactic against me to ruin my life ... so, anyone who takes the same course gets the same treatment ..... so I bet I get a belly full from the Justice 2 Committee once again ....
Just to recap on my case so you understand some of what I have faced ...
A total of 7 firms of lawyers ripped off my famly and conned us over the years, as you have read from papers on this site and my articles :
Andrew Penman, Stormonth Darling Solicitors, 5 The Square, Kelso, Scottish Borders.
David Sturrock, Turnbull Simpson & Sturrock, 31 High Street, Jedburgh, Scottish Borders.
Nigel Hall, Haddon & Turnbull Solicitors, 55 High Street, Hawick, Scottish Borders.
David Reid, Alex Morrison & Co, Edinburgh.
David Reid, Morrison Bishop WS, Erskine House, Queen Street, Edinburgh.
David Reid, Campbell Smith WS, 21 York Place, Edinburgh.
Michael Robson, Robsons WS, Ratho, Edinburgh.
Several other legal firms also came along to interfere in my case and make sure I got nowhere - these being :
Simpson & Marwick, Albany House, Edinburgh. (represented crooked Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso, and made sure my case never got to court)
Tods Murray Solicitors, Edinburgh, (also represented crooked solicitor Andrew Penman and made sure he was saved from court)
Balfour & Manson Solicitors, Edinburgh. (did a hatchet job on the case involving the death of my mum and the negligence of the lawyers involved in it to save them from any punishment .. real dirty tricks here)
These are all .. crooked lawyers and crooked legal firms - don't touch them with a barge pole ... complaints were put in against them all, ranging from embezzlement to fraud, to legal aid fraud, to falsifying paperwork, fiddling accounts, faking files, stealing, lying, and a lot more - all fully supported by paper evidence - but all were let off the hook .. by the crooks at the Law Society of Scotland ... real .. crooks ... and that is why they have to go .... and we have to get this new legislation on the statute books to independently regulate and investigate lawyers and members of the legal profession in Scotland.