As before, as after having not received any reply to my letter displayed for your attention at the Case Study 1 posting, I attempted to find out replies to some of the questions displayed there by seeking legal advise from the corpus of the London's legal professionals. I attended Citizen's Advice Bureau at Family Division of the Royal Courts of Justice to be told that the case is very very difficult and they in fact do not have legally qualiffied consultants. I was advised to attend Mary Ward Legal Center as it is staffed with such a consultants. I followed the advise, attended the center and soon received a letter from certain Mrs Sheldon asking for some dsetails. I forwarded an e-mail to Mrs Sheldon with my answers to receive a reply saying that she was unable to open my e-mail. So, I sent second letter, to which a reply was that she intended to have a break for two weeks, and she would contact me later, which never happened. So, I visited the City Citizen's Advise Bureau with exactly the same outcome as in the case of the Roal Courts of Justice's Bureau, namely: Sorry, we are not legally qualified, we are here just volunteers, you know, just to help you to write a simple letter etc. Somehow, all these advisors were becoming incapable of action as soon as they had understood that the case deals with the Department for Works and Pensions. Also, I had impression that there is something wrong with my person as soon as they knew my surname they recalled that they are not legally educated at all. By the way, at both these Citizen's Advise Bureaus you can see a notice informing you bluntly straitforward in the words similar to the following ones: The bureau is served by volunteers, and it reserves the right to refuse service to anybody without explainig the reasons for doing so. The last time I attended the City Citizen's Advise Bureau I was served by a gentleman with oily eyes in dark blue costume whom I never seen there before and who was very adamant to attract my attention to his computer screen. Can any reader suggest, why it was the case?
So, I understood , that I can not count on the Advice Bureaus. Hence, I decided to seek the luck somewhere else. For the start, I visited Law Society. No, we have no solicitors who are willing to take case on Legal Aid scheme or No win, no fees one. Go to the Community Legal Advise, that is to places like Mary Ward Legal Center, which I already did. So, I decided to approach private, well established legal firms known for their willingness to work within Legal Aid scheme, and I sent a letter to Bindmans. A copy of this letter and the reply to it are displayed below. It is useful to read the letters in the context of the Case Study 1 and apply hermeneutical and context analysis to transcend the text and to form a "pre-understanding" which will be helpful for the analysis of further postings.
Letter 1.
Legal assistance From "Alexandre Sobko" On Mon, May 19, 2008 11:07
Subject: Legal assistance
From: "Alexandre Sobko " Date: Mon, May 19, 2008 11:07
To: info@bindmans.com (more)
Priority: Normal
Dear Sirs,
I was kindly advised to seek legal assitance with the Bindmans by Mr
Rupert de Cruz. There two interconnected issues which I am concerned with.
The first one is as follows. I am a long term unemployed in the UK, and
in January I was ordered to attend a New Deal Programme called Action for
employment. I attended the provider as requested but refused to sign so
called Beneficiary Declaration form. I was subsequently ordered to attend
the programme many times with the same outcome. Meanwhile, I was receiving
such a treatment from Kentish Town Jobcenter which requires legal analysis
as it appears very much to be a professionally designed psychological
operation aimed at braking me down as a person. Finally, the sanctions
were applied to me which effectively disqualified me from getting
jobseekers allowance in this country altogether. I applied to the
Administrative Court for judicial review of the Jobcenter's decision to
cancel paying me Jobseekers allowance.The case is still under
consideration by the Court, but my application for interim relief was
turned down by a judge as "inappropriate". The decision seems to be an
irrational one from legal point of view, and it is hardly complacent with
the basics of humanistic ethics either. Recently I received a letter from
the Jobcenter issued on 22 May 2008 that my claim is closed on 18 April
2008 for not attending to sign my declaration which is conscious and
deliberate lying and framing the case. The scale and methods used by the
jobcenter clearly indicate that their policy is approved by their
superiors. At this point we arrive at the second issue, which is that the
case is being developed on the background of me suffering from many years
long harassment, gang stalking, regular poisoning, covert drugging, covert
interrogations, psychological pressure, continuing threats to murder, at
least one actual attempt to murder, attempts to prevent me from finding
discent employment and continuing suppression of my attempts to sustain
mental activities. Just one example. On 7 November 2006, while studying
for MA at King's College, I was standing between the King's College Library and St Dunstan Court. At 12.05 pm I was approached by a security from St Dustan Court and was ordered to
get away from the place on the basis of it being a private one. This was a
false statement, and I refused. Then three policemen arrived on horses,
and I was searched on suspicion of being a terrorist. Obviously, all
documents were searched, which included my KCL identity card. After
certain suspicious manipulations with my documents, I was arrested and
detained at Sunny Hill police station on suspicion of being an illegal
immigrant, where under the threat of physical violence I was forced to
give example of my DNA. I was detained for four hours, and all my
belongings were sized, including my notebooks. As far as I can understand
, they were copied during this time. My demand to allow me to call Russian
Embassy was bluntly refused:'They are not intersted in you', I was told by
police officer who thretened me with violence. I was only allowed to
contact anybody after four hours of detention, after DNA was taken and
everything was completed. There were also other details essential from
legal point of view which I will release in proper circumstances. The
record sheet which I was handed in is falsified as it indicates that I was
released at 13.11, and this is not true. During arrest retaining equipment
was used and other psychological tricks were used to intimidate me. I was
detaind ' to secure or preserve evidence. To obtain evidence by
questioning'. Grounds for detention were 'to question DP RE immigration
offences', which were obviously not existant. From the circumstances
sorrounding the case it is also clear that the case was staged and
authorised by unknowm authorities of the UK. What is interesting , the
same accusation - of being an illegal immigrant in the UK was raised by a
Russian speaking staff of the British Embassy in Moscow several years ago
when I attempted to get visa which I needed in view of getting after much
difficulties my new passport.There are many other the like examples which
are well documented and many more which require special processing and
analysis using methods of content analysis, structural one etc., and some
of them are relevant to the European and International Law. As my e-mail
and any activities are under permanent surveiilance , I will not dwell any
more on those issues here because, firstly, of my security concerns while
I am in the UK, and, secondly, because of regular attempts to frame me as
a mentally ill om the basis of the nature of my complains. By the way, the
mode of treatment of my complains by the medical profession displays
strange predilection of medical doctors to evoke the notions of mental
health in the case, for example, a blatant poisoning.
At this stage I need urgent help with the first issue as I am deprived of
any income and threatened with eviction because I am not able to pay the
difference between my housing benefit and actual rent. The Jobcenter's
behaviour clearly indicate that the officers were given a carte blanche
for their actions by certain authorities in the UK. I have made some legal
research on legality of the jobcenter's activities, and it seems to me
that they merit delibarate judicial assessment.I sought an advice on the
matter at the City Citizen's Advice Center but was urged to find a legally
qualified person as they do not have neither sufficient expertise nor
access to the primary legislation. The Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal
Courts of Justice, Family Division, refused to deal with the case
altogether. My contacts with Mary Ward Legal Center gave no fruition
either, and there were attempts to prevent my communications with the
legal advisor there, Mrs Sheldon.
From what I described above, it is clear that ideally I would benefit from
the guidance not of just one soliciter, but from a legal firm as it seems
to me that there are many legal issues involved in the case at large -
from medical jurisprudence to the Constitutional law to International law.
Depending on your willingness and capacity and ability to act, you can
either turn down my application altogether, or you could provide me with
assistance on the following levels of complexity:i) just having a look at
the results of my legal research and give me references to the primary
legislation for those instances where I was not able to establish them
myself; they mainly concern New Deal Regulations and issues of illegality,
irrationality, negligence and degrading treatment; ii) becoming involved
in prepairing my case against the Department for Work and Pensions for
damages; iii) becoming involved in the litigation which would place the
case agaist the Department for Work and Pensions in much wider context of
supposed violation of the Human Rights Act 1998; probably, certain
analysis of the nature of international obligations of the UK would be
necessary; the claim will involve also the assessment of damages to my
health and some other issues, and it should be done quickly as there are
persistent and very skillfully arranged attempts to put me down.
Because of my financial position, only Legal Aid payments or 'No win, no
fees ' basis could be appropriate in my case. Also, I am prepared and
able to do much of legal and technical work myself, if it could be of any
help. Any comments and suggestions will be grately appreciated.
> With kind regards,
>
>
> Alexander Sobko
Letter 2
On Fri, May 30, 2008 15:53, Mariam Faruqi wrote:
> Dear Mr Sobko,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry dated 19 May. Unfortunately we do not have
> the capacity within the firm to take on your case.
>
> With best wishes,
>>
> Yours sincerely
>>
> Mariam Faruqi
>
> Paralegal, Public Law & Human Rights
>
>
> * 020 7833 5372
Letter 3
Re: Your new enquiry From "Alexandre Sobko" On Tue, June 3, 2008 16:06
Subject: Re: Your new enquiry
From: "Alexandre Sobko"
Date: Tue, June 3, 2008 16:06
To: "Mariam Faruqi"
Priority: Normal
Dear Mrs Faruqi,
May I take this opportunity to thank you for your reply which is what I
expected - it would be difficult to get anything else taking into account
the context of my enquiry, wouldn't it?
With kind regards,
Alexander Sobko
Friday, 15 August 2008
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Democracy, appearance and reality in Post-Bradley's England: A letter to Senior Legal Managers, the Administrative Court
Dr Alexander Sobko
05.08.08
Senior Legal Managers
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 23LL
REF: CO/3950/2008
Dear Sir,
On 24th of April 2008 I submitted my claim for judicial review to the Administrative Court. Having applied the reasonableness test to how my claim have been processed by now, I became induced to seek your opinion as to whether my judgement that the test failed is reasonable in its turn. There are two aspects that I wish to offer for your attendance.
Firstly, my application for interim relief was turned down on 29 April 2008 by Sir Michael Harrison on the basis that it is not appropriate to apply for interim relief when an alternative remedy exists (see a copy attached). As far as I understand the basic tenets of the English jurisprudence, in particular the Constitutional and Administrative Law, it is up to me to decide whether to follow procedures of complaining or taking the matter to the court. Therefore, should I construe the wording of Sir Harrison’s decision as semantically equal to the statement that it would be inappropriate to attend an evening party at a chamber in white trousers? As far as I understand, the interim relief is a remedy available for a person who submitted a claim to the court and who has a reason to seek urgent consideration of the case, which I had indeed. Therefore, Sir Harrison, in fact, disapproved my application to the Judicial System of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, the question arises as to whether a person in the capacity of a judge of the Administrative Court is empowered to impose his opinion as to whether somebody should or should not seek judicial help in this country?
Another question which comes to my mind in this context is whether Sir Harrison’s decision would contradict or adversely affect the English Law or running the English judicial system had he responded to my seeking interim relief in positive? If not, what was the basis of his decision? May be, to understand this, I need to make acquaintance with Sir Harrison’s ethical views? In this respect I would appreciate if you could be so kind as to refer me to the publications where a biography of Sir Harrison is laid down as I failed to find it. .
Secondly, on 4th of August 2008 I visited listing office of the Administrative Court to seek information as to the standing of my claim , and I had a pleasure of conversing with Mr Roberts on the issue. Firstly, I was taken my mobile's telephone number, which in fact I passed to the office on my previous visit. Secondly, I was told that nothing have changed in the status of my claim since I submitted it, that is, after 15 weeks time has elapsed. Mr Roberts found my question as to what percent of the cases submitted about the same time as mine was experience such a significant delay - I was told, that 8 weeks waiting time is considered to be a characteristic for processing of claims at the Court- a silly one.
Hence, I have a feeling that my perception as to what is reasonable substantially differs from that in operation at the Court. From my point of view, the above indicates of my case having biased treatment at the Court. Now, I have to let you know, that on a number of cases I was poisoned in the United Kingdom, and on three occasions when I complained about this to UCL Hospital and to St Thomas Hospital, I was offered to see a psychiatrist. My complains to the police were in vain also as there were no medical evidence to start a case (details can be supplied on demand). So far, i was used to believe that toxicologists are those people who are qualified to deal with poisonings, and the repeated suggestions to see a psychiatrist with respect to the complains of poisoning indicate that my cultural background and the notion of what is reasonable and what is not substantially differ from those that seem to be pertinent to the views held by the educated layer of the British society.
One more fact in support of the latter thesis is that recently during my visit to the City Citizen’s Advice Bureau to seek advice on my claim submitted to the Court an adviser expressed her strong disapproval of that I dared to sue the Department for Work and Pensions at all. In view of that all, it well may be that my classifying of my case treatment at the Court as biased is not reasonable, and I am seeking your judgement as a reasonable person as to whether my expressed perception of how my case is being treated is reasonable or just a delusion?
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
05.08.08
Senior Legal Managers
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 23LL
REF: CO/3950/2008
Dear Sir,
On 24th of April 2008 I submitted my claim for judicial review to the Administrative Court. Having applied the reasonableness test to how my claim have been processed by now, I became induced to seek your opinion as to whether my judgement that the test failed is reasonable in its turn. There are two aspects that I wish to offer for your attendance.
Firstly, my application for interim relief was turned down on 29 April 2008 by Sir Michael Harrison on the basis that it is not appropriate to apply for interim relief when an alternative remedy exists (see a copy attached). As far as I understand the basic tenets of the English jurisprudence, in particular the Constitutional and Administrative Law, it is up to me to decide whether to follow procedures of complaining or taking the matter to the court. Therefore, should I construe the wording of Sir Harrison’s decision as semantically equal to the statement that it would be inappropriate to attend an evening party at a chamber in white trousers? As far as I understand, the interim relief is a remedy available for a person who submitted a claim to the court and who has a reason to seek urgent consideration of the case, which I had indeed. Therefore, Sir Harrison, in fact, disapproved my application to the Judicial System of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, the question arises as to whether a person in the capacity of a judge of the Administrative Court is empowered to impose his opinion as to whether somebody should or should not seek judicial help in this country?
Another question which comes to my mind in this context is whether Sir Harrison’s decision would contradict or adversely affect the English Law or running the English judicial system had he responded to my seeking interim relief in positive? If not, what was the basis of his decision? May be, to understand this, I need to make acquaintance with Sir Harrison’s ethical views? In this respect I would appreciate if you could be so kind as to refer me to the publications where a biography of Sir Harrison is laid down as I failed to find it. .
Secondly, on 4th of August 2008 I visited listing office of the Administrative Court to seek information as to the standing of my claim , and I had a pleasure of conversing with Mr Roberts on the issue. Firstly, I was taken my mobile's telephone number, which in fact I passed to the office on my previous visit. Secondly, I was told that nothing have changed in the status of my claim since I submitted it, that is, after 15 weeks time has elapsed. Mr Roberts found my question as to what percent of the cases submitted about the same time as mine was experience such a significant delay - I was told, that 8 weeks waiting time is considered to be a characteristic for processing of claims at the Court- a silly one.
Hence, I have a feeling that my perception as to what is reasonable substantially differs from that in operation at the Court. From my point of view, the above indicates of my case having biased treatment at the Court. Now, I have to let you know, that on a number of cases I was poisoned in the United Kingdom, and on three occasions when I complained about this to UCL Hospital and to St Thomas Hospital, I was offered to see a psychiatrist. My complains to the police were in vain also as there were no medical evidence to start a case (details can be supplied on demand). So far, i was used to believe that toxicologists are those people who are qualified to deal with poisonings, and the repeated suggestions to see a psychiatrist with respect to the complains of poisoning indicate that my cultural background and the notion of what is reasonable and what is not substantially differ from those that seem to be pertinent to the views held by the educated layer of the British society.
One more fact in support of the latter thesis is that recently during my visit to the City Citizen’s Advice Bureau to seek advice on my claim submitted to the Court an adviser expressed her strong disapproval of that I dared to sue the Department for Work and Pensions at all. In view of that all, it well may be that my classifying of my case treatment at the Court as biased is not reasonable, and I am seeking your judgement as a reasonable person as to whether my expressed perception of how my case is being treated is reasonable or just a delusion?
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)