shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

The following documents may distress some.

Apparently in 1990 when Edd Milne tried to gain access to documents from his Solicitor he was told they were the property of the Gagrage Edd worked for.

Edd was charged with clocking cars while employed with Castle Motors/Maxwell Motors Forfar.

He was convicted and fined.

He refused to pay the fine claiming Innocence and should have been Jailed for non payment.

Now it transpires that the Lawyer that represented him had more Loyalty to the Company.

It also transpires that the company had more of an interest to Pay Edd's Fine.

Edd was denied access to the papers from his trial claiming that since the company paid Edd's legal expenses they had sole right to his documents.

Is this a conflict of interest or what ?

Edd was backed by another Solicitor from Blackadder Reid & Johnston in the following terms, But still has never been given access to his trial papers nor statements:

Both documents can be found here in larger text:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3239164924/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3239166698/sizes/l/

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 525

So does this mean that anyone who is recieving legal aid, cannot see their documents because Legal Aid paid for them?

As you say Big Wullie, there is a very obvious conflict of interest in this case and Mr Milne is stuck in the middle of it trying to clear his name.

I wish him all the best of luck and hope that he gets justice soon. He truly deserves it.
_________________
Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." - Old Native American Indian Prayer that my dad taught me.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

The letter above more than proves when the Lawyer and Counsel were representing Edd Milne they were truly representing the company Edd worked for and not Edd's Interests.

This Lawyer should be hauled over the coals by the Law Society for this action, but as far as I am aware they did nothing when Edd complained to them.

If you sack a Lawyer you are entitled to ask him for all the papers relating to your case to allow you to conduct an Appeal and he must provide you with all papers pertaining to your case.

They have failed Edd Milne big time over and over again.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Lawyers are under absolutely no obligation to furnish the client with any papers. The Law Society will confirm this before you start arguing with me about it.

When a new solicitor is appointed THEY are provided with papers. The client is NEVER entitled to see papers particulalry in criminal matters when solicitors undertake NOT to provide papers or details of witnesses for example.

BE AWARE I AM NOT ENTERING INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THIS> CONFIRMATION CAN BE PROVIDED BY MY PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE Miss C Patterson, Depute Director, Education & Training, Law Society of Scotland
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Scotkaz

The rules and regulations for legal aided clients once stated that Precognitions and statements should not be released to accused as they were deemed the property of the Solicitor, however, UNLES there are "Exceptional Circumstances" justifying such a course in a particular case.

Exceptional circumstances could be where a Solicitor has been sacked and papers are required for appeals.

This was all before section 6 came into operation or at least we could interpret it this way.

We all have a right to know of the Crowns case (Conceded By Crown in McLeod, Holland & Sinclair) that we are being accused of, Well at least if Holland & Sinclair have been decided legally.

Edd seems to be supported by his Solicitor from BRJ in that they claim his Solicitor was not entitled to hold onto any papers which related to criminal proceedings against his Goodself.

Do you believe our Legal system would stoop so low as to prohibit people from seeing the case against them ? The idea is absurd.

Of course people have always been entitled to see the Crowns case which would encompass seeing witness statements.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

I beg your pardon. Frankly I am sick and tired of you ( a convicted criminal ) lecturing me, a legal professional on legal points and matter to which you clearly know nothing of any significant importance!! If you had actually read my previous post I made no reference to crown papers. But I will tell you this....defence agents have to undertaje not to provide their clients with copies of crown papers or indeed let them see it....these are restricted documents...some can be seen others can't. A client's file is the property of the solicitor for example ... if I was your solicitor any documents and files I have in relation to your cases are my property - the file is my property...totally excluded from DPA and FI.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 525

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Hi Scotkaz

From the horses mouth so to speak here is what Elish Angiolini says about disclosure:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-x11rHMJskY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOQ8jhw-9g

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iNb6ONidmc0

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KqsMu0G-1rY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kW2V0HG4Jlk

I would rather take the word of the Lord Advocate over someone that cannot even use their own name.

Quite clearly Angiolini states the accused is to get a copy of the Crown case in early course when they receive a copy of their charge sheet.

If it's not Convicted Criminal it's Once A Criminal Always A Criminal, It bothers me none that people adopt this attitude, I only feel pity for them actually, SAD Sad

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 145

I'm totally with Scotkaz on this. It's also not very 'professional' to resort to name calling and personal insult in order to make a point. I've said before, this forum is supposed to be discussing the issues, not slagging people off.

I'd like to take fiscal's point a little further. What on earth makes you think that any 'convicted criminal' would have no knowledge or understanding of the legal system? In particular, a person who has been wrongly convicted is, most likely, going to learn everything they possibly can about the system which has been used against them.

The closed-mindedness of some "trained professionals" is nothing more than breath-taking arrogance.

When Kevin Callan was convicted of murdering his partner's daughter by shaking her, he became a self taught expert on Shaken Baby Syndrome - it was his own knowledge and understanding which finally led to his conviction being overturned, and discrediting the so-called experts whose "evidence" had originally convicted him.

Michael O'Brien learned everything he could about the legal system, successfully challenging many aspects of his conviction and treatment.

There are dozens of examples of people who have learned about the law from the "outside" - their knowledge and understanding is an ever growing threat to the elite, protectionist mindset of the "professionals" and posts like fiscal's only indicate how much that threat has them on the run.

Keep up the good work, Wullie - we need many more like you.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Angeline

Thank you for the kind comments, something that has been lacking in the forum since certain people joined.

Everyone I have spoken to agrees that a certain person is not who he portrays himself, We know who he is, no need to mention any names but since they have joined one thing sticks out from the comments.

He is only commenting after me and attacking me so at least he is leaving everyone else alone, I can handle a lot more than he will ever be able to throw at me, I have already served a 6 year sentence for something I was completely Innocent of, What else can they do now, Words uttered from an anonymous mean nothing

Please do not be fooled by the names people opt for when registering with these types of forums, I could be known as "Judge" (But it would not make me a Judge) if I so desired but then again people would not know who I was and what my issues were with the legal system.

I genuinely believe that when you put your own name to your comments you gain more credibility.

I have always told my kids: Never worry what people say behind your backs, Worry more when they confront you head on, The same applies here, I worry none about any of the anonymous posters with hidden agendas nor ones with bad attitudes, Nor do I lose any sleep over them.

I need not explain myself any further other than to thank the many supporters like Iain McKie, SNP for their many MSPs who now support my cause, along with Scotkaz and Angeline and some other genuine posters on this forum.

I wish all well this year and hope some can find Justice, in Particular Edd Milne, Wullie Gage, Jocky Robertson, The Edinburgh Three, Luke Mithchell etc etc

Thanks again Angeline for your support.