From Kenneth Clarke to Paulette Cooper – via her MP

Here is an MP who did something for his constituent: write to the Lord Chancellor. Another MP even took the case of his constituent into an adjournment debate.

The more supportive MPs we can find, the better!

This is a great example for the etiquette of “hierarchical communication”: our “group letter” has been passed on to somebody who works only on certain days in the week, who promises to phone back but doesn’t and who may send her response on behalf of Kenneth Clarke to us within a week.

Instead, Stephen Phillipps MP’s letter to the Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke got an extensive reply which I find helpful in terms of analysing how to go further:

  1. Mr Ebert’s big distinction between “administrative procedures” and “judiciary decisions” needs to be highlighted.
  2. Addressing our complaints to the Lord Chief Justice may be more appropriate, while informing Kenneth Clarke, Vincent Cable and one’s own MP.
  3. Distinguishing between “personal” complaints and “professional” complaint is worth pointing out.
  4. We can be a self-appointed and self-regulated watchdog, even if we don’t get funding from the Victims’ Commissioner.
  5. I don’t see any reason for NOT going with individual cases to the Victims’ Commissioner. After all, she needs to be educated into her job.
  6. Lodging an appeal with the support of our group would be a new exercise of care and support for a victim, and we might be more effective with our online campaigning efforts to refer to.
  7. Meanwhile, we’ll wait for our collective response from both Cable and Clarke, before we decide on next letters.
  8. Writing to the Police seems hopeless in Paulette’s case, but on Forum letterhead, with copies to MP, Lord Chief Justice and Ken Clarke, may force more action out of them.
  9. Stephen Phillips QC MP should be invited to look at EDM 516 on REPORTING of FRAUD and sign it. For Paulette’s case is a perfect example of the ‘maze’ one has to wade through when attempting to report fraud, let alone get fairness, justice, resolution or restitution.

So much for today’s thinking.
More soon!

Stephen Phillips QC MP Rcvd 22 7 2010

Stephen Phillips QC MP Rcvd 22 7 2010

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page One (2)

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page One (2)

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page two

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page two


2 responses to “From Kenneth Clarke to Paulette Cooper – via her MP

  1. The first part of the letter is the standardised script that is always used in such matters, designed to ‘go unconscious’ on the issues being raised.
    The 2nd page of the letter is a strange mixture of fob-off and buck-passing, but the court rules state, I believe, that if an ADMINISTRATIVE error occurs then:

    a) The court has to correct it within 5 days
    b) No jurisdiction has yet been established in the Case and therefore everything that has happened on the Case must be overturned and deemed ‘invalid’.

    Any appeal must be to say: “No jurisdiction because CPR Rule 2.6(3) not complied with, no proof of debt etc etc

    One voice Action Group

  2. Pingback: The Insolvency Service responds on behalf of V. Cable « Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s