ANIMAL FORUM

Subj: DIRECTORS OF LAW SOCIETY ,BOARD OF LEGAL AID AND OMBUDSMAN
Date: 19/07/03 11:35:02 GMT Daylight Time
To: general@slab.org.uk, cro@lawscot.org.uk, ombudsman@slso.org.uk


Evidence going before Scottish Parliament into those who conspire to protect
fraudsters and stealth murderers AND TO BE FURTHER EXPOSED

EXPECT LARGE DAMAGES WRITS AGAINST EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO AIDS AND
ABETS COLLUSION WITH THOSE WHO CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD ,PERSECUTE AND USE
PUBLIC FUNDS TO DESTROY LIVES .TOUCHED BY A SINISTER EVIL WHICH EMANATES
FROM WITHIN THE LEGAL AID BOARD AND LAW SOCIETY BROTHERHOODS.

YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED WITH BLOOD ON ALL YOUR HANDS AND THE APPALLING
ABUSES OF CHILDREN CAUSED BY THAT COLLUSION

==================

Sat 19 Jul 2003

Appalling organisation

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idx2902003

With reference to your article on Tommy Butlers dispute with the Law
Society of Scotland (Law, 15 July), he is clearly a novice in his dealings
with the society; otherwise, he would not have called it worse than a pit
full of vipers. To those who run the organisation for the protection of
solicitors, that is merely a term of endearment.

If he wants to locate a more apt description, he will have to do what the
rest of us do, spend hours dissecting the National Archives of Unrestrained
Invective in a patient, but probably futile, search for an expression that
is accurate enough to de-scribe what an appalling organisation the society
actually is.

THOMAS CROOKS
Dundas Street
Edinburgh

=========================

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idw8692003

THE SCOTSMAN
Fri 18 Jul 2003

Heinous

Dr Craig Ross (Letters, 17 July) is correct about civil law in Scotland.
Perhaps the most heinous criminality facing Scottish people today is the
ease with which lawyers, through the court system, can strip anyone of his
or her lifes work.

Duncan Shields

=========================

Fri 18 Jul 2003

Law Society myth

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idw9022003

As a member of the steering group of Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, I
could not agree more with your article on Tommy Butler, The Law Society is
worse than a pit full of vipers (Law, 15 July).

Regardless of the Law Society of Scotlands claim that impartiality is a
cornerstone of the professional life of a solicitor whose work can lead to
representing clients against governments, multinationals, individuals and
sometimes their own membership organisation, I know this is a myth. It is
perpetuated by the society to make a complacent public believe its
complaints procedures are not just a facade of redress for complainants.

The withdrawal of Mr Butlers solicitor from his case on the day he was due
to appear in court to contest the societys litigation suit is not an
isolated case.

But blaming the society alone, or, for that matter, the Faculty of
Advocates, will never rectify matters. No empire ever remedied or dismantled
itself. Former lawyers, in the shape of sheriffs, judges and MSPs, must take
their share of the blame.

Only the Scottish Executive has the power to effect radical change, so it is
about time it used it and called the unaccountable to account.

WILLIAM BURNS
Shore Road,
South Queensferry,
West Lothian
------------------------------
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idw9292003

Fri 18 Jul 2003

Justice failure

Worse than a pit full of vipers is an apt description of the Law Society
of Scotland. Many will sympathise with Tommy Butler. His case is a vivid
example of the fact that justice is not to be had from the Scottish legal
system.

What possible explanation can the society, the legal profession and the
Scottish legal system have to justify what happened in this case?

The society sued Mr Butler, who was unable to get any lawyer to represent
him in court. This was hardly surprising, because all lawyers are licensed
by the society. Despite this, the society pays Mr Butler Ł10,000 to keep him
quiet.

So, Mr Butler was right all along, for which he gets landed with legal fees
of Ł25,000, leaving him Ł15,000 out of pocket: Ł25,000 for lawyers who
either would not, or were not allowed to, represent him in court.

That is Scottish Justice in practice. No wonder there is such an outcry. One
hopes that Mr Butler refuses to pay the outstanding Ł21,000 in legal fees.
It is about time MSPs did something to clean up the legal profession, the
Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish legal system in general.

STUART USHER
Under Langlee
Jedburgh
=========================
Thu 17 Jul 2003

Lawyers benefit

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idw5622003

With regard to your calls for a supreme court (editorial, 14 July), in so
far as I can see, there are three features of the legal system that might
have an impact on the Scot in the street.

First, you may be tried on a crime of dishonesty by a sheriff sitting on his
own, who will consider whether he is entitled to convict you, not whether
the matter is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As the fiscal will have
confirmed that there will be two pieces of evidence to support the material
fact in the libel, you will be convicted, and will lose any appeal,
regardless of what took place in the court of first instance.

Secondly, you may, wrongly, lose all your property if a judge in a civil
case decides that he cannot be bothered to consider complex points of law,
and finds against you on a point of fact. Such findings are effectively
im-possible to appeal in Scotland.

Thirdly, Scotland can support a smaller profession, which means specialist
skills are less likely to be available.

I can see what benefit lawyers derive from our legal system, but I cannot
see there is anything in it for the rest of us.

(DR) CRAIG ROSS
Kelvinside Terrace West
Glasgow

=====================
Tue 15 Jul 2003
THE SCOTSMAN

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idv9152003

Abuse What Thomas Crooks says in his letter (9 July) about self-regulation
of the legal profession is a fact known to the many who have been wronged,
cheated, robbed and colluded against, and to those whose lives have been
destroyed by unscrupulous solicitors. Those we elect to power allow it to
continue, and it is they who must be held responsible for the culture of
abuse of the law and of basic human rights.

Krystyna Ost
EDINBURGH
======================
Tue 15 Jul 2003

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?idv8102003

The Law Society is worse than a pit full of vipers

Tommy Butler is a bitter and angry man whose erstwhile faith in Scottish
justice has been shattered. His venture into the murky world of internet
domain names left him badly scarred, and he now brands the legal system a
joke.

The root of his deep discontent lies in a long-running dispute with the Law
Society of Scotland. Mr Butler, 42, emerged very soured by the experience
and describes the solicitors professional body as worse than a pit full of
vipers.

Born and bred in Glasgow and still living on a council estate in Drumchapel,
Mr Butler worked as a shop assistant after leaving school. He had a spell
working on market stalls and then trained as a screen printer.

In 1990, when Glasgow was European City of Culture, I designed the word
Glasgow in all different languages. However, I discovered printing ink was
attacking the back of my lungs and I decided it was time for a clean break,
for the sake of my health, Mr Butler recalls.

Like every other household, you go and buy a computer for yourself and the
kids and I came across a website about domain names. It was before the big
boom in domain names, and I thought, Hey, thats a brand new industry.

I got into domain names and decided I had better learn how it works. I read
up on them and did a year-and-a-half course in web design.

The result was a company, Local Websites, which operates from his home, now
with a computer in every room. Mr Butler quickly realised the value that can
attach to domain names.

Within two weeks of paying Ł80 to register a particular name, he received an
offer of Ł1,200 and agreed to sell it. Recently, he has paid Ł60,000 for a
domain name he wanted.

I wish I was a millionaire, but Im not, he says. The business does not
bad and we are still building it up. We have about 1,300 domain names.

If youre going for new business and customers, you want a generic name
associated with your product. If you own a bank, something like bank.com
will get you more business than Goldbloom.com.

I believe the web is more local than global, and we have domain names for
28 areas of Glasgow, and for others in Paisley, Aberdeen and Dundee, and
generic names like glasgowpubs.

We will build a website for clients and advertise them under our domain
names.

The trouble with the Law Society of Scotland began in 1999 after Mr Butler,
who had designed websites for law firms, registered lawscot.co.uk for his
legal portal.

We thought it was short and generic. I did not know the Law Societys web
address was lawscot.org.uk. We assumed it had lawsocietyofscotland.com.

In a period of two weeks, we started receiving e-mails for the Law Society.
We got in touch with the people sending them and said the correct address
was org.uk for the Law Society.

We communicated with the society, letting them know we would forward the
e-mails to them.

This went on for three months. Then we received a call from the society
asking if we would be interested in selling the domain name. We told them it
was not for sale. We were still receiving e-mails and forwarding them.

The Law Society pulls the strings. I used to believe in the court system,
now I think it is a joke

We got another phone call from the society, to go to Edinburgh and discuss
selling the name. Again, we said it was not for sale.

Mr Butler alleges that in a further call the societys stance changed
completely and became aggressive. He says he discovered the society had
taken out a trademark on lawscot, but without notifying him as someone who
could have lodged an objection, given his domain name.

I knew as soon as that happened, they would serve a court order on us, he
says.

It happened and my domain name was suspended. They accused us of receiving
e-mails meant for the Law Society and told the judge they had a trademark in
lawscot.

What they forgot to say was they had registered the trademark only six
months before, and that the reason we had received their e-mails was that
they had been advertising our domain name in their own literature as their
e-mail address.

I said to the society that if they donated Ł500 to a local charity and
apologised to me in regard to the court order, I would give them the domain
name free. They refused. We started phoning Scottish lawyers to represent us
in defending the case and having the suspension lifted.

After 50 calls, we managed to get one. The others said, Thanks, but no
thanks. None of them was interested in taking on their own organisation.

Mr Butler says his lawyer was doing a brilliant job in preparing to go to
court, but suddenly went cold and they parted company. The case files were
returned to him and, he alleges, there was a letter from the Law Societys
legal representatives saying his lawyer was not to speak to the media about
the dispute.

After another 100 calls, he was unable to obtain a Scottish lawyer. He
finally managed to secure one - but only by going through a law firm in
London. The offer of a donation to charity and an apology was again raised,
but discounted.

Mr Butler explains: I said that if they were not prepared to apologise -
they had basically called me a cybersquatter - I was not prepared to give
them the name. We got ready to go to court.

They did not believe we had contacted over 100 Scottish solicitors. If they
could prove I was lying, they were going to go for my character.

We produced our telephone accounts showing the lawyers we had contacted.
That shut them up on that matter. They started saying I was connected to
some group called Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

I got a letter from the man behind the group saying I had never met him.

At court, Mr Butler claims, his Scottish lawyer withdrew, leaving him with
no representation. His English lawyer could not appear. He agreed a
settlement with the Law Society under which he received Ł10,000 and the
society became the registered owner of the domain name.

I wanted to go into court, but not without representation, and I could not
get it. The Law Society pulls the strings. I used to believe in the court
system, now I think it is a joke, and the whole thing is disgusting. I had
already spent Ł4,000 on legal fees, leaving Ł6,000 from the cheque.

I am in dispute with my English lawyers over fees of Ł21,000. If I had to
pay those, I would be Ł15,000 out of pocket. If they had apologised in the
beginning, there would have been no court case.

Instead, they went in with heavy-handed tactics. At the end, they wanted me
to sign a non-disclosure clause and wanted us to send out a joint press
release.

They were not prepared to apologise, so I was not prepared to keep my mouth
shut. And I would rather go into a pit full of vipers than issue a joint
press release with the Law Society of Scotland.


LAW SOCIETY RESPONDS

THE Law Society of Scotland issued a lengthy statement in response to Tommy
Butlers allegations, many of which it disputes. The Law Society of Scotland
s statement said:

It is regrettable that after an action on the issue has been settled by
agreement between the society and Mr Butler in the Scottish courts, Mr
Butler feels it appropriate to rehearse, in the pages of The Scotsman,
arguments which were never upheld and allegations which were never
substantiated in court.

The society have acted in the public interest on this matter and will
continue to do so, should the need arise again.

The societys view, as far as instigating or defending litigation is
concerned, is that it will focus on its statutory duty to act in the
interests of the profession and the public.

The training solicitors receive at university, the law and the societys
rules leaves no doubt that solicitors are there to represent their clients
to the best of their ability.

It is a solicitors duty to give their clients independent advice and to
observe strict professional confidentiality.

Impartiality is a cornerstone of the professional life of a solicitor whose
work can lead to representing clients against governments, multi-nationals,
individuals and sometimes their own membership organisation.

Breaking those principles would constitute a breach of the professional
practice rules.

That situation has never arisen. We have settled the case for less than we
believe it would cost to run it through the courts. At no time did the
society suggest a joint press release or ask for a non-disclosure clause.
Indeed, a story appeared on a website, with quotes from Mr Butler and a copy
of the settlement cheque which was still being held as undelivered, before
settlement.

The society only took action to protect the interests of the public when Mr
Butler informed the society that he intended to transfer the domain name
(which had not yet been used on a live website) to a pressure group.

The societys trademark application was published in accordance with the
terms of the Trademarks Act 1994.

The registrar granted the societys application, which required the
registrar to be satisfied that there had been sufficient publication of the
application and a sufficient case for that trademark to be granted.

The society were happy to discuss the offer of Ł500 which was made by Mr
Butler, but we were informed by his solicitor that he had withdrawn the
offer. The offer was never made again.

The society expressed neither belief nor disbelief at Mr Butlers statements
about the number of solicitors he said he had approached.

Proof of the number of solicitors approached to act for Mr Butler was not
requested by the society, as it was not something made a part of the action
by either party.

The question of Mr Butlers character was not relevant to the action, and
nor did the society seek to raise the matter.

--------------------------------------
The Scotsman
10 July 2003

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idt9242003

Self-regulation

Thomas Crooks (Letters 9 July) is right to say that self-regulation is a
dodgy system of policing, especially with so wily a body as solicitors. It
is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that one should not adjudicate
on an issue in which one has a vested interest. Even if justice is done, it
is not seen to be done.

A topical example is found in the Iraq dossier row, the BBC exonerated the
BBC and MPs cleared the Prime Minister.

DERRICK WHITE
Cockburnspath
Berwickshire

=====================
The Scotsman
9 July 2003
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idt5382003

Self-regulation bias

The Law Societys new fast track procedure for dealing with complaints will
fool no-one. Even if complaints are processed at the speed of light, the
final outcome will always be the same: the exoneration of almost every
solicitor who was investigated for professional misconduct.

The innate bias of the Law Society when dealing with complaints ensures that
most complaints will be processed to protect solicitors at the expense of
their clients. That is the nature of all systems of self-regulation.

THOMAS CROOKS
Dundas Street
Edinburgh

====================

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?idp0132003

THE SCOTSMAN Fri 27 Jun 2003

Points of view

Gender

In her letter (24 June), Janet Paton was appalled at the leniency shown to a
woman who attacked another woman with a glass. It is a common occurrence for
our judiciary to discriminate on gender.

Duncan Shields

======================

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?id90472003

Thu 3 Apr 2003

Rights:

Our medieval system of law produces a mindset which has ridden roughshod
over all human rights, and is now expected to judge cases on human rights
merit.

Law makers cannot also be law enforcers. Banning Scottish Law Society
members from sitting in the Scottish Parliament would be a turning point in
seeing a legal system free of its appalling abuses imposed on vulnerable
people.

Duncan Shields

==========================

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/leaders.cfm?id!8592003

Fri 21 Feb 2003

Massive abuses

Further to the excellent comments made by Krystyna Ost regarding the
appalling injustices within Scotland (Letters, 14 February), until the
devolved Scottish Parliament takes proper control of the legal and judicial
systems in Scotland we will continue to see massive abuses of human rights
in our courts .

The failure of the legal profession inquiry to take immediate action on
evidence provided for that inquiry is cause for grave concern as to why that
evidence was buried without giving the opportunity for oral presentations to
be made by those providing a catalogue of evidence showing corruption within
the legal system.

DUNCAN SHIELDS
----------------------

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/letters.cfm?id=181422003

Fri 14 Feb 2003

Appalling injustices

Jim Wallace, the justice minister, writes (Letters, 11 February) that the
soon-to-be established Scottish Human Rights Commission will not investigate
complaints from individuals.

The point worth making here is of a limited remit again, bearing in mind the
limited remit of the justice 1 committees investigations into the
self-regulation of the legal profession.

The committee arbitrarily changed the remit to debar individuals from giving
oral testimony, in itself an abuse of the European Court of Human Rights.
The long investigation - an expensive whitewash at the taxpayers expense -
resulted in a set of recommendations that re-established the status quo,
thus perpetuating appalling injustices and abuses of basic civil rights.

The new commission will not deal with individual complaints. But it is the
abuse of an individuals basic civil rights that it is supposed to
safeguard.

KRYSTYNA OST
Cameron Crescent
Edinburgh
---------------------------

The Informer

Kazoola7@hotmail.com