Attorneys, Barristers, Judges and Courts Exposed (x±)
Enter more text here
Its is a sad state of affairs when Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States answers straightforward questions in such an evasive manner. Playing such word games reflects poorly on the Department of Justice and it is easy to make certain inferences.
In fact simple Behaviour Analysis demonstrates that such statements fall under the following and related themes:-
“There is sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, upon which a jury could conclude an intent to violate the law. This evidence includes concealment of evidence, destruction of evidence and false exculpatory statements — all of which fall under the general heading of consciousness of guilt.”
However, I have noticed that this is also the consistent theme when it comes to my own attorneys over the past year. They try various ways to impede my progress and ‘go through the motions’ of assisting me but have no genuine interest to do so whatsoever.
Typically there are lengthy phonecalls in which the attorney agrees to undertake a course of action (and upon which the call is predicated upon), but absolutely nothing eventuates. Given their previous reasonable service, the contrast is marked and obvious.
Just two of several items of communication (click the links)
Social Media and Global Exposure
Accordingly we are launching a number of new sites to address the general lack of duty of care that many legal practitioners demonstrate, as well as confirming that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Attorneys Exposed is set to be the largest forum of its kind once officially launched, but in the interim I am proposing to waive privilege on specific documents and call recordings and upload significant data in relation to litigious matters that various Australian and Singaporean attorneys have ‘completely ballsed up for me’. Thankfully I will be rectifying such matters imminently.
Conflicts of Interest
Despite clear conflicts of interest which arose, my attorneys parked their backsides between the relevant Court and I, and did nothing of any use whatsoever. Even when I specifically wrote to them reminding them of their obligations on more than one occasion nothing changed except the frequency and depth of their lies.
It was clear to me that they were not interested in investigating my allegations against Margaret Cunniffe, David Brown and Simon Thompson, despite all three being named parties in litigious matters that were either ongoing or pending. My attorneys were not even writing to the parties as they promised in earlier calls. It seemed that my adversaries were not ready to bring a case against me, but my strategies of obtaining e-mails and communications from specific e-mail accounts of Margaret Cunniffe, David Brown and Simon Thompson demonstrating their involvement, would have yielded inconvenient truths…
My attorneys following the instructions of a third party to my detriment is ridiculous, and we are preparing briefs for negligence and legal malpractice against them. The party appears to be UK/AU Law Enforcement hell-bent on bringing a fabricated case after flawed predetermination of guilt and then labelling me incorrectly.
Court cases take time so we thought of disclosing the evidence first, to assist the lawyers in ‘settling out of court’ before they lose their licence and livelihood. And of course to demonstrate that I AM ABSOLUTELY CORRECT 🙂
Additionally the Judges and Courts themselves (in this part of the world) are often deficient in the actual knowledge of the law and any semblance of integrity, so we will be addressing those as well.
As there is a lot of information, we have the main sites, as well as the sub-sites.
Attorneys.exposed – relates to Attorneys, with a sub-site bearing the name of the attorney in the format xxx.yyy.zzz.attorneys.exposed, in which xxx relates to the first name of the attorney, yyy relates to the surname of the attorney and zzz relates to the ISO 3166 country code where they practise.
So as a worked example, if the attorney was called Catherine Claridge and she was based in Australia, then her sub-site would be http://catherine.claridge.aus.attorneys.exposed .
Barristers.exposed – relates to Barristers with a parallel method of naming sub-sites. So if the barrister was named Phil Morrow, then his url would be http://phil.morrow.aus.barristers.exposed .
Judges.exposed – relates to Judges – a worked example here for a judge named Melinda Pang in Singapore would be http://melinda.pang.sgp.judges.exposed .
Courts.exposed – concerns poor decisions in courts and general garbage in relation to the administration of justice. The url format would be aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd.courts.exposed , where aaa and bbb are the name of the court, ccc is the state that the court is located within and ddd is the ISO 3166 country code. For example http://county.court.victoria.aus.courts.exposed .
No Further Warnings
Despite putting them on written notice several times in the past, we are proposing to write to the parties one last time this week to see if they will review their intransigent stance. We will be seeking all the information provided by the third parties to them otherwise we will obtain Norwich Pharmacal Orders without further delay.
In lieu of a satisfactory response we will literally take them apart – to be frank I really do not mind either option as these clowns have caused me significant financial losses due to their fraudulent misrepresentations made to me, particularly when I relied upon their duty of care.
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)
UK Independent Police Complaints Commission / AU Equivalent
I am preparing briefs in relation to this matter and will be in touch shortly – please add me to your LinkedIn contacts 🙂