Edward William Ellis, Common Law QC

[Albert Haddock]

"...denied Top Down Remedies and created the need for Bottom Up Remedies."

For "Bottom Up" read "made up".

[Hercule Parrot]

"The attached documents are the are self explanatory."

Ummm...

[longdog]

A new post today that is, of course, as incoherent as normal but aimed only at MPs.

The choice for All MPs is to set a New Governance Standard by making a Super Human Rights Declaration for the People against the Authorities.

The Cabinet can do it by amending the Immigration Bill. The words in the schedule force the European Court of Human Rights to enforce the Superior Human Right or risk Total Collapse of the European Convention.
<snip endless drivel>

No hint of any actual court case. Has he learned his lesson and if so how long will it take him to forget it? Oh the suspense!

[Hercule Parrot]

a Super Human Rights Declaration...

Bagsie the laser eyes!

[longdog]

He's back and doesn't seem to have learned his lesson.

https://equitygovernance.uk/remedy-proc ... -15441-23/

[Albert Haddock]

He's back and doesn't seem to have learned his lesson.

https://equitygovernance.uk/remedy-proc ... -15441-23/

"Audio Records"?

[Dr. Caligari]

Fraud, fraud, fraud, baked beans and fraud.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

"Audio Records"?

I think he records his and his acolytes court dates. Certainly, some of Neelu's cases have had remarkably detailed accounts posted within days, sometimes hours, of her hearings.

Completely pointless from a "proof" perspective though as using recording as evidence would be a guarantee of another contempt conviction. It also means that we are more likely to find out what did happen if he continues to make them so I've never bothered following it up with the Solicitor General's office and, although I doubt it, maybe audio transcripts are made available to the parties.

[wserra]

Fraud, fraud, fraud, baked beans and fraud.

Baked beans are off.

[Albert Haddock]

...and, although I doubt it, maybe audio transcripts are made available to the parties.

If it's High Court they record the proceedings, but if someone needs a transcript the recordings go to the shorthand writers to produce a transcript, they don't go directly to the person requesting the transcript.

[SpearGrass]

More on Lois Bayliss, the covid-denying solicitor: she's before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where she's trying to turn her disciplinary hearing in September into a covid enquiry: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/vacci ... f19%2f2024

"The SRA alleges that over the course of less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and GP surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and/or civil liability."

[rosy]

Anal Sheikh is at it again; she may have been reading EWE as she refers to the "Law Society Intervention Fraud"

https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchives ... 4_2185.pdf

I am bound to observe that in making these allegations and seeking to pursue them, Ms
Sheikh appears to have lost all touch with reality and reason.

[longdog]

I won't link to it for rather obvious reasons but Eddie seems to be naming an alleged rape victim in his most recent post.

Seems he hasn't learned his lesson after all.

[Hercule Parrot]

More on Lois Bayliss, the covid-denying solicitor: she's before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where she's trying to turn her disciplinary hearing in September into a covid enquiry: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/vacci ... f19%2f2024

"The SRA alleges that over the course of less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and GP surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and/or civil liability."

Disappointly lenient outcome, IMHO. A £2,500 fine (albeit with £30k of costs), is probably less than she raised from crackpot antivax donors. Seems like thIs SDT panel has chosen to treat her misconduct as a crime of conscience, based on sincerely-held beliefs. But that somewhat misses the point of professional regulation, I fear. Issuing false, harassing threats is no less harmful whether the sender believes them justified or not?

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solic ... 66.article

[John Uskglass]

Disappointly lenient outcome, IMHO.

I'd say astonishingly lenient.

The report says that

A solicitor who made unjustified legal threats in letters sent to some 240 schools over Covid safety measures has been fined £2,500.

Presumably, given the source is The Law Gazette, 'unjustified' is legally correct, and yet

a second allegation that the threats were misleading was also found not proved.

So how can an unjustified threat not be misleading?