top of page

The application they didn't make

Updated: Mar 29, 2021

The below picture is of an order from Employment Appeal Tribunal registrar. It is a confirmation that Griffiths' (aka Stephen Derwent Griffiths and Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune) attempted to appeal against the Judge's decision which confirmed for the second time that their conduct in duping several of my former employers was an abuse of process, a ruse and was illegal. And that their explanations were lies.

It seems that they had given up on trying to appeal against the original decision but found out the files they were trying to send had indeed arrived at the EAT. The file apparently was one of their creations which they have been using to smear me at a lot of different platforms. Apparently they had been sending these fake bundles behind my back to the EAT last year but I only became aware of some of them recently as they put it in a court bundle. They also managed to get their current solicitor to sign a letter they had written which makes it sound their fake bundle was real. Although I wrote to the Tribunal and said it was written by the employers and just signed by the solicitor, I guess Grifffiths would use the letter on platforms the truth is not known. This matter has got so out of hand I don't even know if these fake bundles are the same or different ones or which one they sent where. What it is this: Ms Mareuge-Lejeune has got together some images which she claims are on this website. I do remember one of them from Matrix which briefly accompanied the post about Persephone's sadness about losing Merovingian's love and how she tried to re-live it by spoiling Neo's love for Trinity. Apparently Ms Mareuge-Lejeune removed the post and claimed Persephone's picture appeared next to hers on Google search and Persephone's image was threatening her image. Well, what can I say? Each to their own. I guess even a love story from a movie can be manipulated and seems that it has been. But I am slightly upset that the vegetable and flower posts that actually existed never get mentioned by them.

And of course there are other things she claims are on this Website some of which suspiciously sound like her speech pattern. But the important thing is that there has been two oral hearings at the EAT recently. One for my appeals which were on time and rejected, and one for theirs, both out of time. I have to address some related issues as the hearings, especially theirs, highlighted some important behaviour and their reasons for engaging in those behaviours. I have to put those explanations on here as I am finding out their smear campaign against me goes even further than I could ever guess. This website is reserved for Employment Tribunal matters and matters that relate all consequences they have created in my life.

They had been directed to prepare an agreed bundle for the hearing which was on 24th of March '21. They of course did not do it as directed, as they refuse to follow instructions from others. Instead they sent a bundle they created on their own. That caused some confusion as to my role in this hearing and I emailed the court pointing out that the bundle had no contribution from me, that it had left out the only correspondence from me that they had been asked to include and that a lot of the documents were forged, edited and created by them. For example their compilations of images and posts they claim to be here are not even worth wasting time on. The important documents they put in the bundle such as my witness statement has been changed by them. This is the second time they have used such a document claiming that it is mine. To be honest I didn't read, nor compared it to my actual statement line by line but it is one page shorter than my statement and that is enough for me. They also edited my costs reconsideration application and freely re-submitted it on my behalf in 2019 and still use the version they created in bundles. I do not consider that document to be mine either, it is their creation now. These are just examples and I don't even try to check their 30-40 page emails of insults and allegations. Most of their content are contradictory, illogical and very difficult to read.

Going back to my email to the EAT: they emailed the court and claimed I was in contempt of court (for pointing out their bundle is not an agreed one) and that I was bringing the court to disrepute. I happen to think the people who don't follow instructions from the court and forge files are the ones who would be in contempt of court, if we had to look for someone to blame. Apparently it was Mr Griffiths who sent the email and he was asking a court employee to agree with him. Later at the hearing Ms Maregue-Lejeune who represented them with much enjoyment revealed that they had been complaining about EAT staff because of some administrative error and that they obviously were using that error heavily to get preferential treatment and wanted to manipulate the Ministry of Justice employees to discriminate against me. Apparently this error they magnified was sending out an email to their former representatives DWF and apparently that was very important because they are 'in proceedings with DWF'. She happily divulged in this public hearing that 'there is no time limit for GDPR' as opposed to defamation claims which has a limited time. She was extremely excited about this matter and seems to be preparing more court claims.

They divulged before that DWF paid them compensation already. So it seems they have made quite a bit of profit out of not paying me minimum wage and that explains why they refused to pay it in the first place and continued with this claim up to this level. Their court case against DWF also explains why they are so keen to throw mud at me at every opportunity because they are trying to justify their illegal behaviour towards me and towards my former employers. That would give them two birds with one stone; victimise me further and get more money from DWF. I believe this may have something to do with DWF trying to limit her extremely hostile conduct towards me but she is trying to prove her deceptive and aggressive behaviour would be justified if she can smear me enough.

Towards the end of the hearing, when the Judge asked them why they didn't contact me to prepare an agreed bundle they said the Police had told them not to contact me. I find that a bit odd as they don't freely admit to have harassed me and because of their extremely demanding nature, the Police probably wouldn't even have the courage to tell them to not do something. Even if they did, I don't think Ms Mareuge-Lejeune would follow any instruction from them. At any rate, I don't think any instructions from the Police should prevent them from complying with court orders. I am guessing they couldn't find a better excuse for their non compliance, so came up with this quick explanation.

They also kept saying their reputation was affected because apparently this website comes up high on Google search with their 'rare' middle names. Funny thing is they spent most of the litigation denying these are their real names. I don't know why this website comes up high on Google search for their names but I have known that when I type up my name into Google the tribunal decision comes up at the top. Also it doesn't make sense that they refused to apply for an anonymity order when offered by DWF. In this recent hearing they seemed to be asking the Judge to shape the judgment to protect their reputation and I am sure they would hope to get something negative about me in the judgment, all that while fighting me for minimum wage. They kept saying they work in 'regulated industries'. Yet, at the same time they were using very sensitive information about another former employer of mine, kept repeating their names and also their lies. They also wanted me to say something about that other employer, which I refused and will refuse. Even if explaining matters about others on their claim would help me, I refuse to do it. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune misuses information in an extreme manner, anyone who trusts her should make the decision of sharing information with her themselves.

Ms Mareuge-Lejeune also heavily relied on me having other employment claims. This is the most bizarre one considering all of these events are either a direct consequence of her conduct or are otherwise closely connected to her behaviour. She was simply arguing that she can dupe others into giving her information but her and her husband's information in return is very precious. She was using the consequences of her behaviour in my life to blame me for dealing with the detriment they created in my life. She was disappointed that I appealed against the decision regarding my other former employer London Borough of Islington. I am assuming this is because she had been making extreme allegations against Islington and myself. I won't go into those details on this occasion except that she has been blaming Islington for having been duped into giving her a post employment reference about me. She blamed DWF for using it in the bundle. Her role in all this?: The poor victim. In the below order you can find out how she was also the victim of 'significant weather disruptions' on a summer's day. When questioned by the judge why they didn't submit the appeal on time she said something about school, when he realised it was summer holiday she said "I don't know! May be we went to the park!" I am guessing the significant weather disruption may have something to do with it being too sunny? Unless it was a rare stormy summer day and they like going to the park on wet weather. Again, each to their own but whatever the reason was, it was more important than submitting this claim to the court on time.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page