I have mentioned my experiences with DWF while they represented Mr Griffiths and Ms Mareuge-Lejeune. They lied to me about the legistlation more than once. They wrote letters that are full of lies. They wrote letters that are against the rule of law. They copied and pasted Ms Lejeune's earlier emails to the Tribunal into their letters. After the litigation finished they sent me a letter saying I owed their client money. They lied about their clients' actions, I believe they lied to my short term representatives to turn them against me.
I know that it must be difficult to be paralegals who are studying and working at the same time. And this pair of clients are extremely demanding, unreasonable and believe in supremacy of their rights over others. But still, shouldn't legal representatives behave with ethics? Shouldn't they follow the law? Shouldn't they refrain from lying to others whilst representing their clients?
I knew that DWF had also been victimised by Mr Griffiths and Ms Mareuge-Lejeune when DWF sent a long and bizarre letter that consisted of copy/paste parts of earlier emails from this pair to the Tribunal. The emails belonged to a time when they were raging war against me after sacking DWF for losing a Minimum Wage claim. This is the time when they were demanding me to pay for the meat they had eaten and for the stamps they had used whilst threatening a merchant with a lawsuit. It seemed that when DWF came back on to the scene she emailed them them letters to send to the Tribunal purely to bad mouth me. DWF probably thought it was new and original material. Of course DWF is supposed to have enough strength to resist that kind of behaviour but I guess in Employment Tribunals that sort of behaviour has been ignored for so long that representatives forget it's a court of law. They know they can get away with it, so the ones who are easily manipulated fall into the trap of working in an unprincipled manner.
But still, they also were victimised because they were dealing with clients who not only ignored the law, but were telling them what the law is and should be, to fit into their construct. And of course there were the lies. The below order is one of the two orders Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune hearing was about. See for yourself how they lie about DWF sending them the judgment in the last hour. You will see that the order exposes their lies methodically. The Judge at the hearing on 24th of March didn't didn't seem to want to look at this order at all. He didn't ask any questions about this one despite the fact the employers were applying against two orders, both of which were out of time. On the other hadn't he listened intently to Ms Lejeune's stories about me based on her fake bundle I wasn't even part of. I wonder how he is going to explain his judgment. Does he think big lies long time ago are less important than the lies about the weather on a summer's day? He surely realises the issue of deception and opportunistic lying has been part of this case more often than any of us can remember and/or repeat. He was exceptionally tolerant of false explanations, direct lies, omissions and shook and nodded at places which I couldn't understand why he would do those things. For example when Ms Lejeune started talking about how she can get the Information Commissioner's Office to change it's mind about her actions being deceitful, he shook his head and she stopped. When I asked him if he read my skeleton arguments, so I wouldn't have to repeat myself, he didn't answer. I don't think I spoke more than a few minutes in the entire two and half hours it took. The advisers say this type of hearing doesn't take more than an hour but this one dragged on and on. I wonder how long it would have taken if I was actually involved in the process.
They are lying both about me and DWF in the below order. I was not copied into correspondence so I could understand what was going on, explain, defend myself...Let's keep this post short so you have time to read the order if you want.