Sovrun Paraleguls

[notorial dissent]

ExpertInAllLegalMatters boasts and preens about how he is running rings around the opposition, keeping the judge in line etc. Helen smirks and giggles, thinking that a charismatic rebel hero has come to her aid.

Is it out of order to wonder if those two are .. well how can I put it?

Complete morons?

Complete thundering morons?????

[Hercule Parrot]

ExpertInAllLegalMatters boasts and preens about how he is running rings around the opposition, keeping the judge in line etc. Helen smirks and giggles, thinking that a charismatic rebel hero has come to her aid.

Is it out of order to wonder if those two are .. well how can I put it?

Doing Squelchies? Yes, that thought crossed my mind also. An appalling vista, as Denning LJ once remarked.

[Chaos]

(Lawful Slave) Rolls

are awesome toasted with butter and garlic.

[King Lud]

If this guy has been found to be selling her "legal advice" can he be brought to book or officially warned off in the way that Menard was across the pond?

[SteveUK]

What could possibly go wrong?

right folks just got through typing another letter to bailiffs.they're refusing any request of proof i make.any tips would help cos i really am getting seriously vexed

Dear Sir or Madam.

I have on more than one occasion wrote to you asking you to provide the following information which so far you have Vexatiously ignored/ or refused to send.
1,Your proof of claim against me the flesh and blood man of live birth.Not the Legal Fiction.
2,The court issued Liability order signed in wet ink by a Judge on the day of issue and acting on His/Her Oath (with proof).
3,A true and proper copy of the “Annual Con-tract” signed by both parties (required by Law).
4,The Law (not act of parliament)which states that i a flesh and blood man of live birth is Lawfully obliged to pay Council Tax.

Please take note I am no longer requesting these things I am “demanding” them and will give you 5 days from the date of this letter or I will assume there is no debt in the first place.I also demand that any further correspondence be signed by a person.Once I have all the above then I will consider contributing (only) to the services I use

[Hercule Parrot]

Curious coincidence. My mystical orb predicts that an unknown flesh and blood man of live birth is going to jail soon. I wonder if there's any connection here....

[notorial dissent]

HP, I think your mystical orb has got it in one.

I wasn't aware that you could vexatiously ignore someone, but I like the idea.

He certainly wants a lot, that he is NEVER going to get, not that he would be satisfied if he did, but still.

He is also truly clueless about how things really work as well, and is going to be very unhappy when he, and his legal fiction, come to reside in the same cell.

[JimUk1]

Oh this is gold! Nita actually believes if you work as a tradesman for the council, you must do as she tells you! "Fix my property for free".....how about No you crazy old bat!

https://m.facebook.com/groups/193082005 ... 5803541936

[TheNewSaint]

If this guy has been found to be selling her "legal advice" can he be brought to book or officially warned off in the way that Menard was across the pond?

Good question. IANAL, but as I understand it, the short answer to your question is "no." UK courts allow this sort of advice, in the form of a McKenzie Friend - a person without formal legal qualifications who assists someone in court. UK courts allow them, to the point that a small class of professional McKenzie Friends has risen. Most sovcit gurus act in this official role. If such an person went too far, the judge would simply disallow them from the proceedings. I don't think there's any mechanism to punish or bar bad ones.

Welcome to Quatloos!

[King Lud]

Good question. IANAL, but as I understand it, the short answer to your question is "no." UK courts allow this sort of advice, in the form of a McKenzie Friend - a person without formal legal qualifications who assists someone in court. UK courts allow them, to the point that a small class of professional McKenzie Friends has risen. Most sovcit gurus act in this official role. If such an person went too far, the judge would simply disallow them from the proceedings. I don't think there's any mechanism to punish or bar bad ones.

Welcome to Quatloos!

I'm aware of McKenzie Friends but I didn't realize you could be paid for it. Having now Googled it, it's a nice little earner if you can get away with it although to my untrained eye he seems to be offering actual legal advice for money which I would assume to be a different matter altogether.

Thanks for the welcome!

[longdog]

Never mind if he's allowed to advise or not tomorrow at 2pm the career making St Austell Land-Grab case will be heard and his client will get not one but TWO free properties.

I can hardly control my excrement excitement

[mufc1959]

I'm aware of McKenzie Friends but I didn't realize you could be paid for it. Having now Googled it, it's a nice little earner if you can get away with it although to my untrained eye he seems to be offering actual legal advice for money which I would assume to be a different matter altogether.

Thanks for the welcome!

Welcome, King Lud.

The courts are starting to get thoroughly sick and tired of McKenzie Friends. Here's a recent article from my trade journal about a case where a judge ripped a McKenzie Friend a new one. This one wasn't a FOTL, but he shares many of the same know-all-know-nothing traits we've come to know and love from the Freetards.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/no-suc ... 67.article

I can understand people turning to McKenzie Friends for help - there's virtually no legal aid any more and there's a general perception that solicitors are outrageously expensive and do nothing for you anyway - so why not use the equivalent of a bloke down the pub who only charges half of what you'd pay for proper, regulated legal advice?

But the courts are becoming clogged up with Litigants in Person either acting for themselves or on the often dubious and sometimes downright dangerous "advice" of McKenzie Friends. Any cost saving in eliminating legal aid for civil claims has been eradicated by increased cost to the court system.

And, of course, when you have Sovrun Paraleguls on your side, there's only one way the case will end up.

I have less than zero sympathy for Helen Gardiner - the woman is a vicious cretin. But there are a lot of vulnerable people who are easy prey for McKenzie Friends. They're allowed to call themselves 'lawyers', even if they're not legally qualified. As long as they don't say they're a solicitor or barrister when they're not, they can con people into thinking their advice has some credence, often at huge personal and financial cost to their client.

[Hercule Parrot]

I can understand people turning to McKenzie Friends for help - there's virtually no legal aid any more and there's a general perception that solicitors are outrageously expensive and do nothing for you anyway - so why not use the equivalent of a bloke down the pub who only charges half of what you'd pay for proper, regulated legal advice?

Not disagreeing with your general point, but I think you present a false dichotomy above. The recent proposals to outlaw fee-charging have slightly torpedoed this, but I had for a while been pondering taking early retirement and doing a bit of MF work.

I am an experienced, senior and qualified professional. Let's say I am the Principal Planning Officer for the Smethwick National Park, or a Senior HR Manager with the East Dorset NHS Trust. I've been in this field for 30yrs, my reputation and abilities are well-established. Obviously I am neither, but they will do for general comparison. I am organised and effective in representation before hearings, tribunals and courts. I understand documents, bundles, indices etc. I am smart, punctual and precise, but pleasant and personable too.

My feeling is that someone like this could be a great help to many forced LiP's (people who would previously have gratefully used legal aid, but must now pay for their legal representation). Not by pretending to be a lawyer, but by supporting them to marshal their arguments in a coherent way, and by accompanying them through the terrifying, alien environment of the courtroom.

For example, the unfortunate victims of Helen Gardiner (http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order). We might hope that they can afford a real lawyer to defend this application, or perhaps that their mortgage lender will assist them. Their defence is strong and straightforward, it only needs preparation and presentation. But in reality they may not have two crusts to rub together, and they may be very anxious about representing themselves. I concede absolutely that representation by a proper lawyer is the best solution, but if they cannot afford this then support from a responsible, capable MF must surely be better than nothing at all.

Finally, as a general point - I know that the legal profession is increasingly trying to offer pocket-friendly options via Paralegal, ILEX & Litigator roles. This seems to me to be the best option for the profession - if the market segment for fee-charging MF's is contested by auxiliary representatives of real, regulated firms, most buyers will opt for the latter. Police have their PCSO's, Teachers have their classroom assistants and Doctors have their specialist prescribing nurses. UK solicitors need to mark out a credible 'Value Range' paralegal product, regulated and registered to provide basic advocacy under supervision.

(Sorry mods and members, gone waaay off topic there. But access to justice is a sincere passion for me, I find it utterly shocking that parents who face losing their children are now expected to LiP, for example. If I was in charge, the Legal Aid budget would be reinstated and proper lawyers could again earn a proper living).

[AndyPandy]

Never mind if he's allowed to advise or not tomorrow at 2pm the career making St Austell Land-Grab case will be heard and his client will get not one but TWO free properties.

I can hardly control my excrement excitement

Big day tomorrow! What's the betting on:

Corrupt Judge
No jurisdiction
How do you appeal costs?
This is not the end of it
Judge was nervous and scared and left the room
Representing Solicitor was nervous and scared, nearly shat him / herself
I had them on the run

Any more takers ??

[grixit]

They ruled against me, which proves i won.

[ArthurWankspittle]

They ruled against me, which proves i won.

The "Ebert Spin"

[SteveUK]

They ruled against me, which proves i won.

The "Ebert Spin"

Obviously he's getting 'closer to the truth' .

As opposed to being a total bellend.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Any more takers ??

"Everything is going according to plan."

[mufc1959]

I can understand people turning to McKenzie Friends for help - there's virtually no legal aid any more and there's a general perception that solicitors are outrageously expensive and do nothing for you anyway - so why not use the equivalent of a bloke down the pub who only charges half of what you'd pay for proper, regulated legal advice?

Not disagreeing with your general point,

[snipped]

I don't disagree with you, Hercule. I have no problem with people who have expertise in a particular field and/or who are familiar with court process and procedure offering help to those who need it. In fact, I welcome it. It's not dissimilar to the CAB using volunteers to help people with situations they're otherwise unable to navigate.

I think the main issue I have is that someone in need of help might not be able to differentiate between someone who has real expertise and practical knowledge to impart or a plausible, but clueless, chancer who wants to play at being a lawyer. They will only find out when they're in front of the judge, by which time it's too late.

Access to justice is a fundamental right, and for all its flaws, the legal aid system we had in this country worked well. If people feel they can't pursue their legal remedies through the courts, there's the danger they'll seek other ways to redress their grievances. I don't know what the answer is. Legal aid isn't coming back. I think things will get worse before they get better, and the groundswell of resistance will come, I think, from the County Courts. Friends I know who are District Judges (or Deputy DJs) are at breaking point trying to cope with Litigants in Person and McKenzie Friends who have no clue what they're doing.

[longdog]

Bad News: The Great St Austell Land Grab case has been postponed until Friday.

Good News: The 'expert' knows we are following this precedent setting case with bated breath and will no doubt keep us informed of its inevitable success.

**Update**
The court has changed the date from today, to Friday the 7th. And a big shout out to all the Admirals over at QLoo 'sers'

http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order

Of course if the aforementioned expert would like to register here and explain how an error on a mortgage deed entitles somebody to a free house then that would be absolutely spiffing