I have decided to start making my story public because I believe I may not be the first and only person going through similar experiences in one of the most reputable countries in the world.

My main aim here is not to paint Britain ugly or to insinuate that Nigeria is better than the UK. My main aim is to educate especially Black Africans (especially Nigerians) and other Black people born and or living in the UK (as well as those that may be hoping to move here) on the realities of  the English judicial system with the hope that people do not raise their expectations too high especially in the civil courts like Employment Tribunal where the world media is not often looking. The bottom-line is that you get the highest level of transparency in some criminal matters and Immigration cases because litigants have access to free representations to the highest levels and because the world is often watching, but you get little or no transparency at all in civil cases especially in those where there is no legal aid like Employment law where litigants would end up being burnt out resource wise (or even suffering mental breakdown or heart attack) in pursuing appeals against fraudulent decisions, usually with media blackout . Above all, English Judges (inducing those in the Employment tribunals) are effectively above the law and are practically unregulated by any independent body. A Judge can simply do and undo anything without fearing that his or her career might be jeopardised.
I am not aiming to justify corruption in Nigeria, but simply to tell my life story while I am still alive and sound minded. My hope also is that any one can investigate any of my claims to confirm my story and what might have been the cause of the unacceptable number of frustrated and mentally deranged Black men and women in the UK.
On the intellectual level, I am interested in sharing my new enlightenment that corruption is perhaps not our main disease in Nigeria as and that we could still pursue development despite corruption.
I hope to discuss my view on this in the future, but for now, please read below my recent letter to the Attorney General and my application to the Tribunal this morning.
 
 
Letter to the Attorney general for England and Wales
                                                                                                    
Mr Dominic Grieve QC MP
Attorney General for England & Wales
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF
 
Dear Sir,
Special Appeal for Attorney General’s Intervention
I may not have got the requisite standing or clout to invite your office to intervene and or investigate the wanton abuse of judicial power in my claims and appeals with the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), but I believe it is not only in the interest of justice, but ultimately a matter of national interest that any allegation of judicial malpractices should be properly looked into. Even if, it appears certain that only a mad man could be suggesting that everybody is against him, I humbly plead that it will still be safer in the interest of maintaining Britain’s global reputation as a genuine democratic society with a clean judicial system, to take a dispassionate look into my complaints.
You may wish to note that I am a qualified Barrister (non Practicing) and as such would only be really mad to unreasonably raise serious allegations against judicial officers. I have only been compelled to cry out because my life is being frustrated though strange acts of judicial malpractices.
I set out, with absolute confidence in the Employment Tribunal system, to challenge my employers (Transport for London and London Underground Limited) and other public sector organisations over numerous incidents of unlawful discrimination and victimisation (including the obnoxious policy of the Bar Council which has worsened my situation), but have in every single case ended up attracting the most ferocious “fight back” not from those I have claimed against but from those I ran to for help - Employment Judges and Judges in the EAT. The EAT would readily frustrate, by any means, any appeal I may bring against my treatment in the ET. I am therefore crying out because I am being “shut out” of the civil justice system for no reason at all, in a country where the most senior lawyers, senior judges, politicians and the cream of the media would normally fall on themselves in a public scramble to defend and protect the human rights of sworn enemies of the State (e.g. people caught in the act of terrorism). My complaints against persistent act of unlawful discrimination against some public sector bodies including the Ministry of Justice and the Bar Council have been handled with absolute disregard for my humanness  in that the ET or EAT would deliberately evade or scuttle or distort my complaints in order to arrive at an adverse conclusion. I have persistently received plainly absurd decisions all following the same pattern of evading and or distorting my complaints (ostensibly taking advantage of the fact that proceedings in the ET are not recorded). I do not know why I should be treated worse than the worst criminals in England of all places despite having never been found wanting in character or accused of any crime by any individual or organisation anywhere in this world.
 
I had initially thought, it had to do with my not being British enough in voice and manners, but it has become very clear to me now that some Judges in the ET and EAT probably in collusion with some Public sector employers (and their agents- recruitment agencies)  as well as some dubious Employers lawyers  are desperately working towards building a false profile of me as an unsuccessful serial litigant and ultimately to invite the office of the Attorney General to declare me a vexatious litigant on entirely false grounds. This has meant so far that I cannot be right in any complaint I bring to the ET or EAT no matter the merit of it.
One may ask, “Why would all Judges be against you?”  My answer is simply that I do not know why ET and EAT judges should be up in arms against “tiny me”.  All I can possibly speculate is that I may have ignorantly attracted the wrath of the “legal establishment” for daring to challenge the Bar Council’s obnoxious pupillage policy which has made it more difficult for a Black African to become a Barrister in England and Wales today than it was in the 1980s (A practicing barrister gave me this insight asking me “how do you expect to win against the legal establishment?”). I have also wondered if all Judges are ganging up against me because I once challenged Employment Judge (EJ) Weiniger who tried to strike out my claim in the crudest manner. Otherwise, it may be that my case is in fact pure mystery. I cannot say what I do not know, but what I do no know is that most public sector organisations across England (and recruitment agencies acting on their behalf) are determined that I cannot obtain a gainful employment with any public sector organisation. Some even appear to be goading me to bring a claim against them, by rejecting my job applications even in the most ridiculous manners, in full confidence that I can never be right. If I do bring a claim, the Tribunal would frustrate it.
I am therefore writing not to circumvent any judicial procedure, but simply to cry out in the hope that you will use your good office to intervene and ensure that our globally acclaimed judicial system is not being ridiculed by either a “loser crying wolf” or the very people meant to protect it. It may be very easy to be swayed by the popular beliefs that “some people do not see reasons when they lose” and the notion that “everybody cannot be against one man without good reasons”, but I humbly plead   that you accord me the dignity of a benefit of the doubt and hear me out. I can assure you that I am equally curious in finding out whether I am mad or not.  
I have briefly detailed below some examples of the kind of strange treatments I have so far received from the ETs and the EAT as well as some examples of other acts of judicial malpractices in the making:
1.    On 7 May 2009, the ET at Watford chaired by Employment Judge (EJ) Maloney evasively dismissed my claim against Harrow Council & others for Race/Sex Discrimination based on concocted versions of my actual story.  EJ Maloney carefully evaded even facts which were not in dispute which could have made the ET’s decision plainly untenable; to create a false and incomplete story that suited his predetermined decision.
The key complaint that brought me to the ET can be briefly summarised as follows:
·         I was given a verbal offer of employment by Harrow Council on or around 13 June 2008. I asked and agreed to start immediately and as such the Council’s recruitment agency was supposed to contact me.
·         I called the Council on 24 June as I received no contact either from the agency or any written confirmation of my job offer and was informed tat there had been some problems with my documents without any details as to what I had to do.
·         On 25 June, I received another call from the Practice Manager who stated that my visa was a problem because it would expire in September 2009 and that HR had queried that. She specifically stated that the council does not offer fixed term employment. She initially declined to confirm in writing what she told me, but later wrote me an evasive letter that did not mention anything she had stated to me over the phone, after I confirmed from the HR that what she said to me about my visa was in fact untrue.
·         0n 29 June, I emailed the Director of Legal Services detailing what I had been told and requesting a clarification about my job offer.
·         The nest response was to terminate my offer on the grounds that I had been argumentative, rude and aggressive.

All the ET ‘s judgment said about this crucial complaint was that I was offered a job, but that it was withdrawn after I “foolishly” wrote a rude email. No mention was made of the facts listed above even though they were largely undisputed. Even if they were disputed, a genuine Judgment is supposed to acknowledge the complaints at least (rather than distort or hide the facts).  Moreover, the ET saw an email exchange that confirmed that the same Practice manager who called me on 25 June had at least by 20 June been notified by the Anti- Fraud unit through the UKBA that I had valid visa and entitlement to live and work in the UK.

I was too naïve then to have sensed that anything worse could happen to me. In fact, I imagined that I may not have presented my case well enough and sought to address my imagined flaws in my subsequent experiences.
2.    On 11 and 12 August 2009, the ET at London Central headed by Employment Judge (EJ) Lewezy in a Pre-hearing Review (PHR) evasively decided that Transport for London (TFL) and its lawyers, Eversheds had not deliberately intended to mislead the Tribunal without any reference to the numerous instances of fraudulent representations which were laid bare before the Tribunal without any real defence. For  the avoidance of any doubt,  the ET heard evidence that TFL  made various false claims in respect to disclosing the application forms ( and answer scripts of those who where shortlisted or passed the first stage assessments) in the recruitment campaigns I complained about as follows:
·         That some of the recruitment campaigns were over a year and their documents could not be located
·         That Station Supervisor (TFL 1432) and Revenue Control Inspector (TFL3418) campaigns were run by the Reed Consulting Ltd and that they were “unable to access the required data”.  
·         That TFL 1432 and TFL 3418 were “pre i- Grasp”
·         That through a statement by a Senior Recruitment Manager, Kim Guest on 2 September 2009 that i-Grasp which is an electronic recruitment system was “a  document management system operated by Reed consulting”
·         That through another Senior Recruitment Manager, Ms Patricia Holdgate who gave evidence on oath before EJ Weiniger on 28 November 2008 that i-Grasp was used “exclusively for data capturing and that it was not in any way an electronic recruitment system and further that i-Grasp was only introduced by TFL in late 2007.

I produced incontrovertible evidence that the above representations by TFL and its lawyers were entirely false.

I further produced before the ET, an internal memo produced by Ms Holgate on 24 November 2008 in which she referred i-Grasp as an electronic recruitment system as well as an incontrovertible evidence that i-Grasp was introduced by TFL in 2005.

The ET did not even mention the above points in its judgment.

3.    On 19, 20, 21 and 22 May 2009; 12 and 13 January 2010 the ET at the London Central tribunal chaired by EJ Charlton (a man who seemed everything amiable and honest) flanked by two adult lay members, evasively dismissed my claim for Race/Sex Discrimination against Ministry of Justice (MOJ) over 13 unsuccessful job applications. The ET deliberately or mysteriously failed to mention the staggering evidence of blatant discrimination heard by it over 5 days.  The hearing was all about comparing my application forms in each of the 9 posts (8 Legal Adviser roles and 1 Case Progression Support Officer role) where competence based application system was used with those of my nominated comparators against the criteria for shortlisting which was specifically that candidates should provide specific examples of how they met each of the 5 competencies tested (also, that examples must state what one did, how and outcome). In fact the instructions made it clear that the shortlisting will rely on the answers provided to the application questions and that examples should be drawn from any field.

Not only, that I was able to produce about 5 application forms of candidates of other ethnic origins especially Whites and Asians who were shortlisted for each of the positions despite not being able to produce specific examples, I was also able to extract contradictions and admissions of guilt through my cross examination of MOJ witnesses. In one dramatic scene during the hearing, in respect of the post of  Legal Adviser Ref: 350o/06/08, the MOJ’s witness, a lawyer of over 30 years experience  had no way at all of justifying the scores he awarded to candidate 30886 ( A White woman) who plainly provided very sketchy answers and definitely no single specific example as required. The witness said something like “Can I speak to my Barrister…” The Judge said, “say what you want to say here” and he went “I am actually very embarrassed about this one” and went on to confirm that it was this candidate who got the job. The Judge even commented on the sketchy nature of this particular candidate’s answers giving me assurance that I was definitely not living in a “fool’s paradise” about my claim.

There were other dramatic expositions during the proceedings that highlighted more favourable treatments of applications of Whites and sometimes Asian candidates, but the ET shockingly did not mention any of them in its evasive judgment. The Judgment did not even refer to any of the comparisons made and what the ET found, meaning simply that the hearing was a deliberate waste of time.

I have appealed to the EAT, pointing out all the flaws, but as expected, my appeal has been sifted out as not disclosing any error of law. I will next attend an oral hearing on 14 December 2010, where an EAT judge would deliberately ignore or twist my grounds of appeal against me.

4.    On 3 & 4 February 2010, the ET at London Central chaired by EJ Wade, did not surprise me in delivering an evasive Judgment  in my Indirect Race Discrimination Claim against the General Council of the Bar ( Bar Council) over its imposition of compulsory funding of pupilages policy.

I was however, surprised that a Court of Law in England of all places could go as far as making up false evidence and deliberately distorting the facts and issues in order to arrive at a predetermined result. I was deeply worried about how the Bar Council hoped to win as it was (and remains) plainly impossible under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA) for the matter to be decided in its favour and had tried unsuccessfully to raise public awareness through the media. For some reasons I may never know, the mainstream media (including Guardian which had indicated to me it would be attending), apparently chose in unison, to stay away.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Bar Council’s own statistics showed that since the imposition of the compulsory funding of pupilage in 2003, the number of pupillage opportunities have drastically reduced for everyone, but  Black Africans in particular have been hardest hit.  In fact, the statistics show that in 2001 when there was no compulsory funding rule that 19 Black Africans obtained pupillage whereas in 2007, only 3 Black Africans obtained pupillage.
The Tribunal equally saw documentary evidence from the bar Council which showed that both chambers and sub groups in the Bar including the Inns of Court all opposed a policy closing the door on Black Africans who wish to obtain their pupillage without pay. The Race Relations committee specifically opposed a ban on unfunded pupillage noting that ethnic minorities mainly relied on unfunded pupillages.

Further, there was no evidence at all before the Tribunal that the Bar Council conducted any race equality impact assessment contrary to section 71 of RRA.
EJ Wade’s judgment claimed among other outrageous findings and decisions that:
·          Section 12 of RRA does not apply to the Bar Standard Board (I did not bring any claim against the Bar standard Board), knowingly evading the correct Respondent I claimed against.
·         The statistics produced by the Bar Council was not reliable referring it as my statistics even though it remained valid statistics produced by the Bar Council and was never disputed
·         It relied on some imaginary statistics it heard about from one of the witnesses of the Bar Council (a blatant falsehood).

·         It heard from one of the witnesses that the Race Relations Committee of the Bar Council welcomed the policy.

·         The policy which makes it impossible for me to obtain unfunded pupillage from any chambers (even if I want to) did not apply to me but to chambers.

5.    On 12 February 2010, at London Central ET, during a Case management Discussion (CMD), a recruitment agency revealed that all recruitment agencies in the country had circulated adverse information about me.  Even though my claim included allegation that recruitment agencies were used by mainly public sector organisations to hide unlawful discrimination in recruitments, the EJ refused to order the disclosure of the “blacklisting” email circulated among recruitment agencies. The EJ even refused to take judicial note of the revelation. I was later forced to abandon my claim because of the antagonistic attitude of the Tribunal.

6.    On 25 August 2010, the ET at London Central chaired by EJ Snelson, in an unmistaken show of judicial rascality dubiously struck out my claim against Venn Group, (one of the major recruitment agencies used by public bodies to conduct discriminatory recruitment exercises) as having no reasonable prospect of success.

In this case, it was manifest enough that something untoward is going on because it appeared that the ET instigated the Respondent to apply for a PHR   as an avenue of striking out my claim. EJ Glennie on or around 14 June 2010 had suggested to the Respondent that it could apply for a PHR (although he said something like, any side can apply for a strike out). When an application was made for strike out, the same EJ Wade (who had in all 4 or more previous occasions) made perverse decisions against me, was the one who rushed to list the matter for a PHR. My strong objections listing a number of grounds which made it ridiculous for the Respondent to apply for a PHR as well as the overriding objective (saving costs) received an evasive response as usual.

For the avoidance of any doubt about the dubiousness of the PHR, Venn had told EJ Glennie during the Case Management Discussion (CMD) in June, that my CVs were not forwarded to any of its clients in the 10 jobs I applied for because I was either over qualified or did not meet the specifications or because I refused to properly register with it. When asked by the Judge, they clarified that I was considered over qualified for  the two paralegal roles and further stated that I was considered suitable for the role of Employment lawyer ref: mbbel171008, but was not forwarded to its client because I refused to come and register with it. Venn specifically stated in that CMD that this was the only job which required prior registration to be forwarded to its client.

Interestingly, Venn came on 25 August 2010 to argue that I was not suitable to be forwarded to its clients in any of the jobs I applied for, including the paralegal roles, the employment lawyer role mentioned above and the post of Legal Researcher which was apparently offered to a White male whose highest educational attainment was A level.

I had invited a friend to come and witness my story and expected to get a better treatment, but I was wrong because EJ Snelson who in the hearing furiously asked Venn to reconcile its contradictory submission that I did not even come close to being suitable for the same post of Employment lawyer which it had previously represented in its original response to my claim  that I was considered suitable for (but was not forwarded because I did not register), eventually claimed that there were no contradictions. He further ruled that the White man with A level (and with no significant legal experience) was more suitable for the post of Legal Researcher because he had experience of working with a Local Authority.

Further, the decision to strike out my claim is not only dubious in terms of the usual misrepresentation and manipulation facts, but also runs starkly contrary to binding legal authorities. For example, in the case of Anyanwu and another v Southbank Student Union [2001] ICR 391, the House of Lords said that Discrimination claims (especially race) are case sensitive and as such should be rarely struck out. Further, in the case of North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007]  IRLR 603 , the Court of Appeal applying Anyanwu, held that strike power should not be exercised in discrimination claims especially where the central facts are in dispute.

In this case, the claim about registration by Venn was in dispute as well as the claim that I was not suitable for certain roles including where a White male with ‘A level’ was deemed more suitable than me for Legal Researcher were all disputed.

7.    Impending Judicial farce in my second claim against Badenoch & Clark (a recruitment agency) and Others:   This is a case that gives further credence to a suspicion of something really mysterious happening in the Employment Tribunal system.

B&C’s lawyers, Sheridans, incompetently and or negligently failed to respond within 28 days which elapsed at 23:59hrs on 30 December 2009. Instead of filing its response immediately it realised its failure, Sheridans wrote the Tribunal asking for my claim to be struck out for being an abuse of process. This was a laughable application because B&C had no grounds, to make any such application, even if the application had any merit whatsoever.
Helpfully,  Employment Judge Pearl reminded the respondent’s Sheridans, as I had done  that it had no basis for making any such application when it had not even responded. B&C then forwarded its response on 12 March 2010, more than 2 months out of time and Employment Judge Pearl rightly in line with the rules, rejected the response and ruled that B&C will not take active proceedings in the proceedings – meaning that I had effectively won my case against B&C.

B&C had 14 days to apply for a review if it did not like the decision and 42 days from 26 March when the decision was sent to the parties, to appeal in the EAT.
The time for appealing to the EAT elapsed on 7 May 2010 at 4.00pm, but B&C had done neither review application nor filed a Notice of Appeal.

On or around 27 May, 2010 during the part-hearing in my first claim against B&C and Others, EJ Wolffenden  suggested that a CMD which had been scheduled for my claim against the Second Respondent in this claim was meant for discussing “…the First Respondent’s failure to respond”. This was never stated in the Notice of CMD that I received.  In any case, B&C had indicated it was not opposing the decision of the ET and it is impossible to discuss such a matter in a CMD as failure to respond within the time limit could only be addressed by way of a review hearing if the Respondent applies for a review (B&C had not applied for any review). It was further baffling, how or where EJ Wolffenden got what she said from?

I promptly reminded the EJ that B& C had neither applied for review nor filed a Notice of Appeal.

However, on 1 July 2010, B&C applied for a review claiming that it had changed its mind against not challenging the ET’s decision to debar it from taking active part in the proceedings.

My concern here is that the ET is probably scheming to find a way of accepting B&C’s Response even though it would plainly constitute an abuse of process. Besides, even the response of B&C and disclosures it made lately show that it has no valid defence to my claim, in any case ( e.g. the CVs it purports to have forwarded do not meet the very criteria it claim that I did not meet to be forwarded). There are clear indications here that some Employment Judges are determined to ensure that I must never be successful in any claim.

8.    Impending Judicial farce in my first claim against B&C and London Borough of Havering ( Havering Council) at the London Central ET (awaiting Judgment):

Going by my previous experiences, the ET chaired by EJ Wolfenden is likely to hand down an evasive judgment despite the startling revelations made in the course of the hearing.

B&C made several contradictory representations about why it refused to forward my CVs to its clients in the 10 jobs in question and further disclosed plainly dubious CVs as those it forwarded to its clients (e.g. it disclosed CVs of people with  15 to over 20 years post qualification experience as applying for jobs paying  £20 per hour). It did not disclose any evidence showing that all the CVs disclosed were people who actually applied for the jobs in question. In another blunder it claims that a job advertised as Discrimination Caseworker was in fact looking for an Immigration lawyer.

In the case of Havering Council, it said that B&C forwarded my CV to it but that for the post of a Locum Employment Lawyer advertised with £16 per hour (one of the lowest), but that it rejected my CV out rightly without even printing it out from the system because I did not demonstrate that I possessed the essential requirements for the role. In particular, it claimed that I did not possess one year post qualification experience, even though I demonstrated over one year sound experience of Employment law practice.

During the hearing, the ET saw among the CVs of those shortlisted for interview:

·         A candidate who apparently was a non practicing Barrister like myself ( but at least a year behind me) and had  little experience of employment law

·         An Australian lawyer who had no legal qualification in the UK and had  never practiced Employment Law either anywhere in the world

·         A New Zealand qualified lawyer with no employment law experience in the EU as well as a White South African lawyer in a similar situation.
Havering Council’s witness further did not help the Tribunal by confirming that the New Zealander who had neither legal qualification nor legal experience in the EU was offered the job despite the plain fact New Zealand law even if very similar to English law cannot be said to be close to our Employment law which is largely governed by EU law.

As far as the law is concerned, the only possible decision here is a finding of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race.

For the avoidance of any doubt, all my comparators (those 5 CVs) are plainly of different ethnic/ racial groups. The law on burden of proof (see s. 54A (2) of The Race Relations Act 1976 inserted by a regulation in 2003 to implement an EU directive) says “ Where, on the hearing of the complaint, the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent—
(a) has committed such an act of discrimination or harassment against the complainant, or

(b) is by virtue of section 32 or 33 to be treated as having committed such an act of discrimination or harassment against the complainant, the tribunal shall uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he did not commit or, as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act.]”

Further, the case of   Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33 says at paragraph 58 (per Lord Justice Mummery) in respect of the Respondent‘s explanation of the reason for the difference in treatment when the burden has shifted that “…He may prove this by an adequate non-discriminatory explanation of the treatment of the complainant. If he does not, the tribunal must uphold the discrimination claim.”

The statute and case law cited above means that nothing short of a finding of unlawful racial discrimination should come out of this case. However, I can only expect an evasive decision from the ET.

9.    Impending Judicial farce in my case against TFL (ongoing):  The full merit hearing in my claim against TFL will resume on Monday, 27 September 2010 at the London Central ET under the chairmanship of EJ Glennie.

Going by the manner in which previous Tribunals have frustrated  me in this matter and the skilful manner in which the present Tribunal has so far allowed the Respondent to basically disclose only documents that suit (holding back or withdrawing previously disclosed documents they found to be detrimental), I would be a fool to expect  a genuine judgment.  The occasion again arose for this Tribunal to make a decisive decision on the conduct of the litigation by TFL lawyers, but like other previous Tribunals, it gave an evasive decision.

 In my complaint against the failure to shortlist me for the post of Station Supervisor, TFL stated in September 2007 that about 300 candidates were shortlisted, but refused to disclose the application forms in 2008. In 2009, after apparently realizing that the ET would accept any submission made against me, TFL lawyers reduced the number to around 74. When forced to disclose the application forms, they disclosed only 32 for inspection. I grudgingly attended the inspection and still was able to select about 4 application forms including absolutely ridiculous and indefensible ones.  Mid way into the hearing (after the Counsel had apparently seen the weakness of some of the application forms that were supposedly shortlisted) TFL claimed that it made a mistake in the documents it disclosed and tried to claw back.

TFL lawyers have further committed before this Tribunal various acts of misrepresentation (It is supposed to be a serious act of professional misconduct for a barrister to mislead the Tribunal, but in my case the Barrister representing the TFL seems to have obtained a waiver from the Bar Council to do as she likes) without any sign of disapproval from the Tribunal.

I have equally noticed the reluctance of the Tribunal Judge to note down the most crucial evidence given out during my cross examination of witnesses.   Sometimes, I have had to literally beg the Tribunal to note down contradictory responses from witnesses.

I am almost certain that the Judgment will be evasive as usual as I believe that the only reason TFL has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in mounting a scandalous defence is because it believes I will never win, no matter what the evidence says.

10. Impending Judicial farce in my case against Sellick Partnership (recruitment agency) on 20 October 2010 at Manchester ET: In this claim the ET is as usual fighting hard to strike out my claim against the recruitment agency.

11. Impending Judicial Farce in my case against BT: on 17 November at the London Central ET – I applied for both Employment Paralegal and Employment Lawyer posts with BT (both based at Bletchley, Milton Keynes) in or around September 2009. I expected to be successful in at least the post of Employment Paralegal as I could not imagine there being any White person with my level of qualification and experience in Employment law who would be going for such a low post.

On or around 16 September 2009, I received an email from Mr John Edwards regarding the paralegal role, staying; “We have now completed the recruitment for this role and will therefore not be reviewing any further candidates.”
I inquired about when the recruitment was completed as I clearly forwarded my CV before the deadline, but refused no response.

I later forwarded a race/sex discrimination questionnaire after I was equally rejected for the post of Employment Lawyer, but I received an evasive response that “the position of Paralegal was withdrawn from external recruitment” and that no appointment was made, despite having informed me in September 2009 that it had concluded recruitment for that post.

The disclosures so far made by BT have not disclosed any single evidence that the post of Employment Paralegal which I applied for was withdrawn.  There are documents referring to paralegal posts in Hong Kong whit it hopes to use in convincing a dubious Tribunal that the job I applied for had been withdrawn.

The bottom-line is that BT has not explained why it did not shortlist me for interview even if the post was later withdrawn and has not made full and honest disclosures.

However, going by my experiences the ET will almost certainly accept everything BT says and evasively reject all my arguments.

12. At the EAT on 21 October, 10 November and 14 December: The EAT is set to    frustrate my appeals against ETs decisions in Harrow and MOJ. The EAT will as usual evade the points of law raised in my appeal to claim that my appeal discloses no error of law.

13. Other incidents: For want of space, I decided to highlight just a few examples of my mysterious experiences. I have left out my equally horrendous experiences of daylight judicial robberies.  I have discovered that the new strategy is to strike out my claims pretending that I have no reasonable prospect of success. This has been done already in my claims against Career Legal, OFWAT, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and in the making in my claim against Sellick Partnership. Even when I detail in written submission, every point that make that would make a decision to strike out my claim absolutely untenable, an Employment Judge would either make up evidence or evade my arguments to find against me.

I am ready to furnish you with any further details you about the examples highlighted above and other instances.

I know very well that confidence of my detractors is that no one would believe me and that the evidence of the number of claims I have brought would count against me, but as I am aware that I have not committed any crime by attempting to challenge perceived acts of injustice, I remain hopeful that you would at least try to confirm tat I am a mad man by trying to investigate any of my claims.

Even if there is any reasonable grounds for suspecting that I am deliberately applying for jobs only to bring claims, ETs should be astute enough to identify any abuse of process rather than getting inappropriately involved.

All I seek from your office is not sentiment, but a dispassionate look at my complaints.  I have raised very serious issues which touch deeply on  the manner in which the sensitive issue of race discrimination is handled by English judges and as such my complaints should not in the interest of  harmonious race relations, be swept aside.  There is a general notion, created by the Courts and probably opinion leaders that evidence of direct race discrimination is nowadays hard to find. My complaints above further reveal blatant cases of direct race discrimination and how Judges in the ET and EAT are effectively frustrating the RRA rather than advancing

I am therefore certain that there are more advantages than disadvantages to the country, in addressing my complaints rather than sweeping them aside as moans of a disgruntled person.
Yours Sincerely,
John Iteshi
Barrister (Non-Practicing)
 
Application drafted this morning to persuade the Tribunal to see a black and white evidence of fraud.
 
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL         
LONDON CENTRAL                                 Case Nos: 2203604/2007, 2201707/2008,
                                                                                     2203362/2008&2201942/2009
                                   
 
BETWEEN
                                                  MR J ITESHI                                               Claimant
                                                          -v-
 
(1)  TRANSPORT FOR LONDON  
(2)  LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD
(3)  REED CONSULTING LTD                               Respondents      
           
         _______________________________________________________
               Preliminary Application (Possible Misconduct by 1st &Second   
                        Respondents and their Lawyers)
          _______________________________________________________
    1.    I make this preliminary application for the Tribunal to consider possible sanctions against the First and Second Respondents and their lawyers for persistently misleading the Tribunal. There was not enough time  yesterday, to engage the Tribunal on some helpful evidence of Mr Mark Anthony Smith in respect full and honest disclosure of relevant documents in these proceedings. I also needed to be clear in my head that I am thinking properly.
    2.    Mr Smith was asked by Counsel for the First and Second Respondent   about his letter at page 1585 and his answers quite clearly contradicted the First and Second Respondents’ representations about the number of candidates who passed the application stage (the stage I failed at).
    3.    Counsel first asked Mr Smith to justify the number 96 (indicated as selected) at p1586 and he gave two possible explanations as follows: “A number of reasons come to mind … it could be that 96 were selected to commence training” He further added, “The other reason could be that at that time TFL was reviewing their headcount figure on…  TFL could take some successful to training … were as others would be asked to wait for the next trench for suitable candidates”
    4.    He was further asked “how would the number who has completed the training show on i-Grasp to which he responded “The system is a management information system and those processes are specific to each campaign… you actually set the system up specifically for each campaign…”.
    5.    The Tribunal must note that during my cross-examination of Mr Smith, I confirmed Mr Smith’s earlier evidence as follows in respect of page 1586: You said that the number 96 was at that time the number that might already have started training and his answer was an emphatic “Yes indeed”.
    6.    In my submission, Mr Smith’s evidence in respect to the number 96 in page 1586 is fatal to the First and Second Respondents’ case particularly in respect of their persistent representations that the total number of candidates who passed the short listing stage was 46 and the First and Second Respondent’s entire representations especially in respect of disclosure of documents.

    7.    The fact that the number 96 were selected and could have commenced training unambiguously suggest that more than 96 passed the short listing stage were I purportedly failed since the First and Second Respondents accept that for you to reach the training stage you would have gone through the assessment stage. Looking at the large number the First and Second Respondents admit passed the assessment stage in the identical Service Controller Level 2 – ref. TFL4749 campaign conducted before this particular one with Ref: TFL 6315.

    8.    There is therefore no basis at all for this Tribunal to accept the First and Second Respondents’ claim that 46 candidates  passed the first stage (shortlisted) when at least 96 went on to at least 2 stages above shortlisting.

    9.    This issues clearly underscores the peculiar difficulty I seem to have in getting any Tribunal to accept even the most obvious favourable evidence in that the document in page 1586 is unambiguous about the fact that 96 were selected yet Employment Judge (EJ) Pontact on or around 3 December 2009, shouted at me like a dog (and went ahead to dubiously misrepresent virtually everything that transpired in that hearing) dismissing my complaints that there had not been honest disclosures.

    10.    As the Tribunal may recall, I have also failed in two other occasions before EJ Pontac, to convince the Tribunal (even with Black and White evidence of blatant falsehood) to accept an unambiguous fact that appears favourable to my claim. Firstly, I failed before EJ Weiniger on 28 November 2008 to convince him that the First and Second Respondents were misleading the Tribunal about i-Grasp not being an electronic recruitment system and that it was introduced by TFL in late 2007.  The EJ refused to even look take note of my evidence that I had been applying for jobs with TFL on i-Grasp since 2005. Again on 11 & 12 August 2009, I had another opportunity to present before a full Tribunal my application for strike out of the First and Second Respondents for misleading the Tribunal and for refusing to obey disclosure orders. I  failed again not because I did not articulate all the evidence well at least in writing (even if my oral presentation is normally too defective), but for no known reasons as none was given by the Tribunal in a Judgement that made no mention at all of the specific  issues I complained about.

    11.    I therefore invite the Tribunal to make preliminary findings of fact and decisions regarding the conduct of the Respondents in relation to disclosure of documents relating to the post of Service Controller Level 2 Ref 6315 and other posts.

    12.    The Tribunal may also wish to note that the Counsel for the First and Second Respondent, Ms Txxx has persistently refused to reconsider her position in relation to the Bar Code of Conduct regarding misleading the court. The Tribunal is further invited to make judicial note of the several acts of false representations it has witnessed in this proceedings including those I earlier enumerated against Ms Txxx in my additional witness statement (which the Chairman said I needed not to recite things that transpired before).

    13.    Eversheds also needs to be forced to reconsider its position in relation to misleading the Tribunal. It was the same Eversheds which has spearheaded acts of misconduct since the inception of these claims.

    14.    I am wondering whether both the Bar Standard Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have both waived their codes to enable some lawyers to act as they like.

    15.    I have decided to put my preliminary application in writing because I am curious about why every Tribunal must not accept any fact favourable to me even when it is so obvious.

    16.    The Tribunal is invited to decide that the First and second Respondents have deliberately misled the Tribunal at least in respect of this particular campaign (Ref: 6315) if not in all other matters.

    17.    The Tribunal is further invited to make judicial notes of the professional conduct questions relating to the continued acting of both Eversheds and Ms Txxx.
 
John Iteshi
28 September 2010
 
 

You may also like

Read Next