Comments on page 24: Here is a bunch of horrible lies. First of all how are they deducing messages? What is that happened in their house that she claims was on this blog? She thinks she is paranoid but because the other employer felt the same instead of both being paranoid she feels validated. And that Police caution: Mr DE lied to the Police about a letter I sent under the direction of a court. He told them I had done it without such instruction despite the fact I had also sent him a copy of the email from the court. Their address was published online by themselves. And the judge confirmed the other details such as their email address. So this was police questioning me was over an envelope. They did not say the ‘I had visited their house at least once’ lie. These two sets of employers made that up. And why would I visit their house and why at least once? What would be the purpose of such a thing? I have evidence of what the Police asked me and will post it just to prove these people are lying. And the Police knows but of course its easier to harass me than challenge these demanding wealthy people. Employment Judge Quill took their lie further by writing vague things like their other complaints, not meeting prosecution threshold. There were no other complaints I was questioned about. There was no mention of prosecution. Judge Quill wanted to misrepresent the Police letter which is posted above so I put it here before he wrote his judgement and this is what he came up with. I am sure these people’s barrister Mr Paul Wilson and Employment Judge George are behind these creative attacks on me. They have been behind many other decisions on the second claim against Mr BC and DE. They are also behind Judge Brown’s attempt to remove a name that has been published online for two and a half years with a correction certificate. Their decisions are unlawful, illogical and immoral. I should not have been questioned by the Police for following a judge’s order. The Police should charge these people with lying to them and wasting Police time. But of course this is not a democracy and the judges are more racist than the employers and the Police.
Paragraph 61. She reported me when Mr DE lied to the Police to get me questioned. You see if two employers report at the same time they thought they can get me arrested. And yes, the blog has been here since January 2020. I don’t know if she is stilll reporting me.
Paragraph 62. She is not a vulnerable teenager but I think she said things like that to remove dozens of newspapers that published their pictures and changed the articles regarding this claim. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune is an abusive adult who wants to mobilise authorities to do her dirty job while ripping me off and ruining my life. I don’t have to give up on defending myself because she has a need to be abusive. I don’t believe she genuinely is paranoid or believes what she is saying. Because she is manipulative and is overly confident she thinks these arguments would look credible to others.
Comments on page 25: Wow, Look at that hearing making it sound serious. The Police did not tell me anything about the email that was sent to her husband’s work place or ask me anything about it. This is how these people lie about important things like that’s. Here is instructing the judge to lie in the judgement. And this all offending email apparently includes the links to public judgements which apparently they were pretending isn’t them.
She is the one obsessed with their names. And why is she even pretending that she used the common Griffiths as a surname? She detested it and kept saying anybody could be ‘Mrs Griffiths’. You can from her own explanations precious name is Maregue-Lejeune is so unique, the only one in the world. And has no one told this person names are some secret information, its how people are identified on this world? And some versions of that employment contract has different names on it. Nowhere on earth I don’t think people would be allowed to keep using different names even at the same court. Only in Britain where fraud is supported by the court itself.
Of course I want to know who these people are. And public has a right to the correct information too. It is also in the interest of future employees they might rip off. Oh yes, the wonderful remedy of a small part of my wages being paid to me after years and after they stole most of it. And remember how she was reporting me to the Police and making outrageous false allegations.
Yes, she wants to come across as sure it was me but also whoever was sending it wanted the employer to know about his wife. The judgments are published online, him or the wife are not entitled to privacy from the online judgements. But the entirety of her explanations show why they use different names for different purposes. Wage war on the nanny under common names while keeping the precious unique names out of it. That’s apparently what the plan was.
Comments on page 26: What she is saying here a lot of lies, distortions to generate strong feelings who ever reads it. First of all, her husband who is a tax adviser did rip me off below minimum wage by using his tax expertise, that how this whole litigation started. All of this public. She used deception repeatedly, that is evidenced and public. Their jobs were not more important than defending a minimum wage claim for them. They committed crimes against me and were still making false allegations and I have a right to defend myself and correct any lies about me. And she is still talking about my witness statement on the first claim by saying a witness statement is a main document upon which the public judgement rest. So I am sure she will be pleased this masterpiece of hers is published here. And of course she is harassed by my efforts to defend myself on this website. She doesn’t have come and read any of it if the truth offends her.
She is lying thorough her teeth in paragraph 68: and by the way the husband’s workplace email addresss etc is not his email addresss its an enquiries inbox for his workplace Saranac Partners. The email is posted on this blog if you want to see it. As I said above the Police didn’t tell me anything about this email address. And also does she think the Police would see her contacting my universities, my employers and her attempts to trace me social media as stalking/ harassment? What makes this person feel she is so special that she has a right to do all that but anything that happens in her life makes me a criminal?
In paragraph 69 can you see how shameless this person is. She is using the family, intentions, fraud anything. She is a confirmed fraudster and she is the one who stole money from me and five years of my life with this a simple litigation. Her relentless false allegations are the reason why this litigation keep going on and on. I don’t think she will stop lying and spewing hatred in the future either.
Comments on page 27:
Paragraph 70 and 71, she is lying and explained how her actions relate to my race and to bringing a claim very well in this statement.
Paragraph 72. She still doesn’t know my ethnicity. Their builder’s race is not part of my claim and even she is not racist towards him doesn’t mean she won’t be to me.
Paragraph 73. Just consider all the comments she makes about the other set of employers and the sheer number of police reports they filed separately and together about me and how she thinks I also reported her.
And here we are with further incidents. Paragprah 74. See how this shameless thinks anything happens anywhere has something to do with me. Destruction to her property. When I asked what this was about she said water pipes in their house had been blocked and smelt nice when it was opened, so it the nice bit made her think its something to do with me. How does any of of this make sense? oh and she will never tell you when this happened so she can shape her accusations whenever she wants.
In paragraph 75. Oh she is open minded, wow she doesn’t firmly believe I was involved. Lets continue on page 28.
Comments on page 28: See how this poor victim cannot even report me and how I am an ‘enemy’. If litigation turn people into enemies she has many because she litigated non stop for the last decade. And harming someone who is in litigation with is her idea. And she is complaining about the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Employment Tribunal not letting her make more police reports. So if I had not brought this claim she was going to act even more outrageously and she certainly has no intention to stop.
Paragraph 76. Still pretending she can say and do anything to me privately at the court. And those pictures that are ’ripped’ from their employer’s websites. What part of internet being public does she not understand? And she wants to report it and all that. She is just fighting for a right to abuse me forever while stopping me say anything. What makes her believe that she can get interfere with my right to freedom of expression and to defend myself? Oh yes, they are more important. They have stalked me and harassed me for over five years now. In the begging it was different reasons which I will post as much as I know. After the blog its all about the blog and their lies about it. Isn’t that a detriment? This person harassing me forever and forever and using the authorities in the process?
Paragraph 77 onwards: These are the messages with my niece she made disgusting allegations about. I will post them later on to show how she takes anything out of context and distorts for her purposes. Yes, as I said before I was looking to leave soon after I started. Her persistent argument that we had an excellent relationship and allegation it was me who wanted to keep in touch after we dealt with before. But these persistent arguments show how persistent a liar she is and that she cannot accept people might not like her to the degree she desires.
Comments on page 29:
Paragraph 79., Yes here we go again with the full board, full pay and their precious house.
Paragraph 80 makes it clear that I communicated to them that I was not entirely happy and was preparing that I have other plans but this person is all demanding and trying to portray me as if was lying. She is an extremely demanding person who didn’t care about my feelings or what convenience she caused me. Just remember they were not telling me but had already stolen from my paid taxes and had instructed the payroll company to deduct my wages below minimum wage. Their house was dangerous and unhygienic and I didn’t want the children to get attached to me so I could leave. I will hopefully post all of those to give a well rounded picture of who awful living with them truly was.
Paragraph 81. Ms Mareuge-Lejeuene told me many stories about JP Morgan and her colleagues including how she made a manager break someone’s desk, how one jumped off the building, many stories about the wealthy clients. She resented her job and it seemed as if she was disliked a lot by them. She always mentioned the clients’ worth in how many millions they have. And the fact that I didn’t like them again and again. This person who stole from me and waged war o me for five years for bringing a simple pay claims is not entitled to demand being liked.
Comments on page 30: even in what she cropped from messages you can see that I had raised the pay issue with Mr Griffiths while still claiming I didn’t discuss the pay problem with them. And this ‘maniac’, French maniac’ bit is because she had made racist comments about the Polish cleaner and my niece was saying what she related to the cleaner’s race was not only about Polish people and that French people can also have maniacs. All the other adjectives she is complaining about: why does she think we cannot have our own opinions about her outrageous behaviour? By putting them here she is basically saying we have no right to have any opinions and she is not offended, she wants to milk it and want to portray herself as a victim. This is the person who hid food from me, stole from my wages, made racist comments all the time, called me £23000, gave me a bad honey after comparing it to the good one when I was sick and looking after their children. And these are only examples of her behaviour. She is not entitled to be liked by me.
Oh my her ‘Concluding thoughts”:
See how she is suggesting I may have harmed the children. Yes, the employment was short and they owed me only a mere £900 for which they fought ferociously for five years. The Tribunal kept most of their fraudulent methods out of the judgements which empowered them to wage this war on me. Publishing the claims on this blog? Has she counted the online judgments yet? And since the hearing in June 2022 the claim and their pictures were published internationally in over 20 newspapers. It was published in Metro with their pictures. This publication happened after she brought a claim against her employer Equiom (Scarista). If they want to be ‘fit and proper’ for thier profession they need act accordingly, its not everyone else’s job to cover up for them or my duty to be abused in silence.
Comments on page 31, still continuing the lies about the blog and how their reputation is important. It’s obvious she finally started using Griffiths as a surname so no one knows this person who used dishonesty in a simple claim against their nanny is her.
In paragraph 84. Her allegation that the names of her husband’s ex wife, cleaners, nanny etc etc. None of it makes sense. And feeling threatened by pictures she claims are here; this is a person who gets threatening mental messages from someone who is sitting in a court room at the back. I am not responsible about her alleged mental processes. And pretending her family may get upset her aunt he died in ‘tragic’ circumstances. She forgets she used that aunt’s suicide in a medical report which she submitted to the Tribunal. If she ever thought about her family she wouldn’t have used such details. I was the one who objected to her conduct but I cannot stop her stop using everyone around her, including the children use as weapons in a Tribunal claim.
In paragraph 85 she is complaining about her name being tagged again. That name is Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune, not Griffiths. And it’s again not my responsibility where on Google her website appears. You can see that she is asking the Tribunal to find ways to force me to shut down my blog while she is still making disgraceful, dangerous false allegations about me.
Paragraph 86. This was a pay claim which made me lose even more and five years. Now she keeps making false allegations. My intention and motivation is to protect myself and to correct all the lies in the judgements. I intend to protect my livelihood and my relatives and friends. She can apologise and stop lying more and making more false allegations. That would appease me. But from she says the earlier paragraphs she doesn't intend to. At a judicial mediation, in letters and at the Employment Appeal Tribunal she argued for future rights to continue being abusive towards me. She is playing the victim but as many know she is the victim of her own conduct. Abusing others with impunity is not a right.
There, the end of it.