Dear Sir
Thank you for your letter of today.
I sent that message to you in error and I apologise.
As you have said previously you cannot intervene, I believed that correspondence between us was at an end.
To call me vexatious and ask for my private letters for seeking the truth to be deleted, after I have committed a protected act, as far as I am concerned are detrimental, bullying and therefore victimisation.
I refer you to the attached document judicial conduct 2013
As I have stated an employment Judge said I should never have lost my case.
My difficulties lie in the document ANNEX 1 the Bristol ET got it wrong and the wrong needs to be corrected.
Yours Sincerely
Douglas
Dear Judge Parkin
I thank you for your letter of today and for taking the time to review my document annex 1.
You are not entirely correct when you say “I recognise that you feel dissatisfied with the original judgment”
The truth is I am mostly dissatisfied by the reasons as per my document annex 1.
I am an ordinary individual who believes in truth and honesty, not a Lawyer or Judge with prerogatives which can be easily abused.
Judge Hand admits the Tribunal accepted the respondents version of events and you agree.
He fails to mention they made up facts to suit.
However what Judge Hand says is irrelevant to my requests, the Bristol ET got important facts wrong.
The principle of finality in this case relies on corruption of the truth, bullying; this cannot be allowed.
I would like the truth recorded in the reasons for posterity not a fabrication of false facts.
I seek satisfaction, for these reasons I will continue to write to whoever I wish, including you.
Please note my new address for posting letters is as my e-mail of 03/02/2015.
Thank you again.
Douglas.
Dear Sir
Thank you for your letter of today.
I sent that message to you in error and I apologise.
As you have said previously you cannot intervene, I believed that correspondence between us was at an end.
To call me vexatious and ask for my private letters for seeking the truth to be deleted, after I have committed a protected act, as far as I am concerned are detrimental, bullying and therefore victimisation.
I refer you to the attached document judicial conduct 2013
As I have stated an employment Judge said I should never have lost my case.
My difficulties lie in the document ANNEX 1 the Bristol ET got it wrong and the wrong needs to be corrected.
Yours Sincerely
Douglas
Dear Judge Parkin
I thank you for your letter of today and for taking the time to review my document annex 1.
You are not entirely correct when you say “I recognise that you feel dissatisfied with the original judgment”
The truth is I am mostly dissatisfied by the reasons as per my document annex 1.
I am an ordinary individual who believes in truth and honesty, not a Lawyer or Judge with prerogatives which can be easily abused.
Judge Hand admits the Tribunal accepted the respondents version of events and you agree.
He fails to mention they made up facts to suit.
However what Judge Hand says is irrelevant to my requests, the Bristol ET got important facts wrong.
The principle of finality in this case relies on corruption of the truth, bullying; this cannot be allowed.
I would like the truth recorded in the reasons for posterity not a fabrication of false facts.
I seek satisfaction, for these reasons I will continue to write to whoever I wish, including you.
Please note my new address for posting letters is as my e-mail of 03/02/2015.
Thank you again.
Douglas.
SYSTEMATIC LEAGAL BULLYING!
The Tribunal may well have reached the right outcome.
But, there is no doubt, that their decision was based upon the wrong story and incorrect factual conclusions.
Is this not bias?....it is certainly not fair.
In contravention of the bangalore principles
Dear Mr Gardiner
Please find attached a copy of our defence which was filed with the court on 15th April 2014.
In the interest of future costs and in view of the nature of the defence which has been filed by me, I request that the claim against Peninsula Business Services Ltd be withdrawn by you as no cause of action lies against it. In the event of your failure to do so I shall proceed as robustly as necessary to secure a strike out of the claim.
Your sincerely
Philip Hulme
Philip Hulme
Legal Services
Compliance Manager
SYSTEMATIC LEAGAL BULLYING!
The Tribunal may well have reached the right outcome.
But, there is no doubt, that their decision was based upon the wrong story and incorrect factual conclusions.
Is this not bias?....it is certainly not fair.
In contravention of the bangalore principles
Dear Mr Gardiner
Please find attached a copy of our defence which was filed with the court on 15th April 2014.
In the interest of future costs and in view of the nature of the defence which has been filed by me, I request that the claim against Peninsula Business Services Ltd be withdrawn by you as no cause of action lies against it. In the event of your failure to do so I shall proceed as robustly as necessary to secure a strike out of the claim.
Your sincerely
Philip Hulme
Philip Hulme
Legal Services
Compliance Manager
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
