Friday 23 April 2010

WAKEFIELD TRIES TO SHIFT BLAME

Why does Wakefield now try to shift blame onto Dr Thores? Here’s a history of Thores’ involvement.
In 1998, after seeing a newspaper article, Thores contacted Jackie Fletcher, organizer of anti-MMR organization, JABS, to explain to her that the problems with Pluserix and Immravax MMR vaccines had been known before they were introduced and that the problems had nothing to do with the nonsense being peddled by Wakefield and Richard Barr. But Jackie Fletcher was in thrall to Barr and with him set up an ambush for Dr Thores. An appointment was made for Thores to meet Fletcher at Newcastle station, but instead he was met by the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr and his bedmate, Kirsten Limb. Thores explained his background in MMR manufacturer SKB and in Health Departments in Canada and UK. From 1988 onwards he had warned Kenneth Calman and David Salisbury over the dangers of Pluserix and the similar MMR, Immravax. Pluserix had been sold in Canada as Trivarix and had immediately caused unacceptable meningitis problems and had been withdrawn.
Thores was unhappy at being conned into a meeting with a lawyer when he was expecting to meet the parent of an MMR-damaged child. He was also uneasy about Barr’s apparent determination to ignore evidence and to instead pursue a generalized attack on MMR vaccines.
Another meeting was set up for Wakefield to attend with Barr and Limb on 28 February 1999. Thores repeated his account of warning Salisbury and Calman over the dangerous nature of Pluserix and Immravax and explained how he had circulated published papers to members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Thores went on to explain how members of the JCVI had been worried over their personal liability as they were approving a product they knew to be defective. According to Barr’s notes Thores claimed a representative of SmithKline Beecham had told him not to worry as “we are immunising the children and the Government is immunising us” and he took this to mean that there was a deal that had been struck between SmithKline Beecham and to the Government in relation to legal liability arising from the use of the Pluserix vaccine. Thores referred to another deal – Pluserix was not licenced in the UK and committee members were told that its licensing procedure was rushed through on a “fast track” basis.
Thores was also bothered by the bonus payment scheme for doctors that the Government introduced in 1990 to incentivise GPs to reach vaccination targets.
Thores told Barr that although he had signed the Official Secrets Act he was wiling to make a written statement confirming his claims.
It is noticeable from Barr’s notes on the meeting that although he had been involved in the MMR issue for several years he couldn’t spell the names of MMR products or the names of key individuals involvedand that Barr failed to make the most basic checks of Thores between the two meetings.
Jackie Fletcher was in a position to ensure that the litigation was soundly-based so it’s hard to understand why she ignored Thores’ warning as well as the others she received about the way in which Wakefield and Barr were exploiting the situation to the disadvantage of MMR-damaged children. It’s also hard to understand why Jackie Fletcher absented herself from the meeting with Thores while tricking him into meeting with Barr. This is one of a number of instances where Fletcher seems to have had far too close a relationship with the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr.
Later, Thores was interviewed by parents of MMR-damaged children and confirmed what he had said at the meetings with Wakefield, Barr and Limb, but Thores revealed that he had refused to have anything further to do with Wakefield or Barr because he had noticed that they had a hidden agenda. Thores confirmed that the MMR issue was based on the mumps component, not the measles component that Wakefield and Barr were using to make money. Thores confirmed that although he was bound by the Official Secrets Act he was willing to go to court where a judge could clear him to give evidence. He also revealed that he had retained key secret documents that were stored in his lawyer’s office in Edinburgh.
In view of the above it may seem remarkable that Wakefield and Barr did not use Thores’ expertise, but the sad fact is that Wakefield and Barr were interested only in exploiting the condition of MMR-damaged children and making as much money as possible from it. Using Thores evidence would have made it easy to win cases but that would have yielded little profit for Barr and Wakefield.
WAKEFIELD, THE PARENTS' FRIEND?
Dr Bill Long's article "On Second looking into the Case Of Dr Andrew J. Wakefield" in the Autism File (Issue 31 2009) records how Rosemary Kessick in a phone call to Dr Wakefield of 19th May 1995 told the story of how her son had descended into autism after having the MMR vaccine. The Findings of Fact following an investigation by the Fitness to Practice Panel at the GMC into the conduct of Wakefield and two of his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital outline how nearly all the Lancet 12 children did not fit the inclusion criteria for the study because they had had the MMR vaccine, Ms Kessick’s son included.
Wakefield knew as far back as the 1995 phone call that Ms Kessick’s son had had the MMR vaccine and did not fit the criteria for in inclusion in the Lancet 12. How many of the others, found to have been wrongly included in the Lancet 12 because they had had the MMR vaccine, made that known beforehand? This is a clear demonstration of research fraud? Is this why Wakefield ensured that parents were not called as witnesses?

WHAT ABOUT THE CROOKED JUDGES?

Justice Bell played a major role in the great MMR swindle. He was the appointed judge, but then announced that he would hand over the case to another judge. So, knowing that he would not be responsible for the consequences, Bell corruptly made an order that would ensure that injustice was done and that none of the children damaged by any of the various MMR vaccines would be compensated. How the Government, the pharmaceutical companies and their insurers must have laughed.
Bell made an order that the entire action would be based on tests on eight children, an obvious fraud by Bell:
1. Why was he making an order when he had already announced that he was leaving the action?
2. The tests he ordered would involve the children being exposed to unethical tests, as shown by the GMC ruling on Wakefield and his fellow crooks. So the tests should not have been carried out at all.
3. Half of the test children were to be chosen by the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers!
4. Bell did not specify what results would be regarded as +ive or –ive. It was like an examination where there is no means of marking answers and no passmark.
5. Bell had decided that the central issue was autism, even though many of the children were not autistic and had quite different and well-evidenced damage.
Bell then departed and a story was put about that he had discovered a conflict of interest – a distant relative with autism. That really is odd because he had pre-announced his departure, which means that he had been aware of the conflict of interest before issuing his order. He should have stepped down the instant he became aware of the conflict of interest.
But the story of the conflict of interest was probably a lie. Bell’s maneuver was one that is familiar to pickpockets and judges. Pickpockets ensure that they cannot be caught with the loot on their person by passing it to a collaborator. The thief doesn’t have the loot and the man with the loot didn’t do the thieving. Bell handed the action to a new judge who would run it according to Bell’s order. Bell would not be on the scene when the action inevitably failed. The failure would be on the watch of a different judge, one who had not issued the original order.
The new judge was Justice Keith, freshly arrived from Hong Kong and ignorant of the new Civil Procedure rules. Keith was keen to be accepted by the corrupt English judiciary, the alternative would be to return to China where corruption is not as profitable. Keith’s ignorance was such that he was guided by the lawyers when he should have been controlling them. Keith should have looked at the order controlling the litigation and thrown it out but he chose to ensure injustice. No wonder the action cost a staggering amount of money and not a single child was compensated.
At the end of the process, Keith had the impertinence to point out that some of the cases had not been allowed to present their evidence at all. But the action had been managed by Keith so the perversion of the course of justice was by him. Keith’s crocodile tears were most unconvincing.
But Keith hadn’t finished helping the Government, pharmaceutical corporations and their insurers. The action over autism had failed and the autistic cases had been thrown out when Keith received an application for an order for the Dublin laboratory that had tested the samples of the autistic children, to open its doors to inspection by an expert appointed by the pharmaceutical companies. There was no basis for Keith to agree to this request because:
1 The laboratory was in Eire and therefore outside Keith’s jurisdiction.
2 The relevant part of the litigation had ended.
Keith chose to do something quite bizarre. He wrote to the Dublin court to request an order for the Dublin laboratory to open its doors to the defendants’ expert. The Dublin court would have been deceived into thinking that this request was relevant to ongoing UK litigation. The Dublin court issued the order and the expert, Professor Bustin, made his inspection and produced his 2004 report.
Later, the true purpose of this farce was revealed. The defendants in the US litigation applied to Keith for a copy of Bustin’s 2004 report, and Keith eagerly agreed to this request. Now the reason for Keith’s letter to the Dublin court became apparent. The US authorities wanted Bustin to inspect the Dublin laboratory but a request from them to the Dublin court would have been rejected as the laboratory was not used by the US defendants. So Keith fabricated a reason for Bustin to inspect the laboratory. That makes it clear that this had been a dirty conspiracy executed by Keith to supply the US authorities with material they could not obtain by legitimate means

Friday 19 March 2010

EXPOSED BY AN ALLY

Connie Howard inadvertently revealed more dirt on Wakefield in her article http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=14512
She asked Wakefield if he’d been paid over £ 400,000 pounds by lawyers who wanted to show that MMR vaccines caused autism. He replied "I worked as a medical expert for nine years on the MMR litigation. When the case folded because Legal Aid was withdrawn, the lawyers refused to pay what was owed and the costs judge took a lot of the fees back from the various experts. What I did earn was donated to an initiative to build a new centre for gastroenterology care and research at the Royal Free [in London]. Unfortunately I was forced out and it never got built."
So the lawyers who employed Wakefield were dissatisfied with his work and he tried to swindle more than £400,000 but the judge turned him down.
What about the money going to a new centre at the Royal Free? Wakefield tried to buy a professorship by offering profits from his various frauds but he’d been kicked out of the Royal Free by the time he got the £400,000. Did he expect to buy his way back with £400,000? But why doesn’t he tell us where the money went. You pocketed it, didn’t you, Andy?
Wakefield did another piece of fancy footwork in his interview. He said “the case folded because Legal Aid was withdrawn”. Not true. His research was such rubbish that the lawyers who had employed him were forced to conclude that there was no case and reported that to the Legal Aid Board. The collapse of the litigation was absolutely due to Wakefield’s incompetence.

WAKEFIELD, THE PARENTS' FRIEND?

Dr Bill Long's article "On Second looking into the Case Of Dr Andrew J. Wakefield" in the Autism File (Issue 31 2009) records how Rosemary Kessick in a phone call to Dr Wakefield of 19th May 1995 told the story of how her son had descended into autism after having the MMR vaccine. The Findings of Fact following an investigation by the Fitness to Practice Panel at the GMC into the conduct of Wakefield and two of his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital outline how nearly all the Lancet 12 children did not fit the inclusion criteria for the study because they had had the MMR vaccine, Ms Kessick’s son included.
Wakefield knew as far back as the 1995 phone call that Ms Kessick’s son had had the MMR vaccine and did not fit the criteria for in inclusion in the Lancet 12. How many of the others, found to have been wrongly included in the Lancet 12 because they had had the MMR vaccine, made that known beforehand? This is a clear demonstration of research fraud? Is this why Wakefield ensured that parents were not called as witnesses?

THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT

We would not normally reveal the identity of a child claimant in litigation but the child involved in this piece has already been identified publicly by his mother and so he and his mother are identified in this piece that is based on an article by Dr William Long, “On Second looking Into The Case of Dr Andrew J Wakefield”, see http://www.autismone.org/content/second-looking-case-dr-andrew-j-wakefield-william-long-mdiv-phd-jd .

Long demonstrates the role of Rosemary Kessick in the Wakefield fraud, her role having been previously outlined in the expert testimony of Professor Thomas McDonald in Hazlehurst in the US courts when referring to the MMR/ASD theory he stated that “The theory was made up in January 1997 by a lawyer Richard Barr, a woman called Rosemary Kessick and Andy Wakefield”

Long refers to the study involving the now notorious Lancet 12 children as “Study Two” and in the chapter “The Phone calls and the Genesis of Study Two” he records how seven months before Wakefield was to meet Richard Barr, the lead solicitor in the MMR litigation on the 6th January 1996, he had received a phone call from Rosemary Kessick on May the 19th 1995. Wakefield advised her to seek help for her child from Professor Walker Smith at St Barts, where blood tests were performed on the child to eliminate the presence of Crohns and Coeliac Disease. No arrangements were made for the child to be seen again!

In an interview of Ms Kessick in the Independent 27th November 1996 it was stated that “William is one of 10 children taking part in a pilot study at the Royal free Hospital in London which is investigating possible links between the measles vaccine with the bowel disorder Crohns disease and with autism. The study is being organised by Norfolk solicitors Dawbarns one of two firms awarded a contract in 1994 to co-ordinate claims resulting from the MMR vaccine”. Barr stated in his newsletter that the Pilot study at the RFH was coordinated by Dr Andrew Wakefield.

It is further recorded that William, Ms Kessick’s son, in February 1996 joined a group of more than 300 children seeking compensation for damage from an MMR vaccine. That’s a month after Barr made contact with Wakefield and nine months after Kessick’s phone call to Wakefield.

Dr Long records in his article how the cases of the 12 children were investigated between July 1996 and January 1997. Kessick in a letter published on the Age of Autism site on May 8th 2009 states that she is the mother of Child 2 from the 12 children investigated as the Lancet 12.

William Kessick was therefore confirmed by his mother to be part of the MMR lawsuit in February 1996 some 5 months before the tests on the Lancet 12 (of which he was Child 2) at the Royal Free Hospital.

So how could Dr Wakefield in his Matt Lauer interview say that ”none of the children in the Lancet Study at the time of their referral for investigation …none of them were involved in litigation”?

From the GMC’s “Findings of Fact” it is stated that Child 2, identified by his mother as William Kessick, was seen at Barts by Professor Walker Smith on 29th June 1995 approximately one month after his mother had called Dr Wakefield and that he was eventually admitted to the Royal Free “on or about the 1st September 1996” some six months after his mother says he was part of Barr’s lawsuit and almost 18 months after she originally called Wakefield.

To make matters worse, GMC charge 9c(i) records how William Kessick should not have been included in the Lancet 12 study because (a) he had been enrolled into the research study before 18th December 1996, the date permitted under the Ethics committee approval for inclusion and (b) he had had the MMR vaccine.

How could Wakefield not have known that William Kessick was part of a class action law suit before he was enrolled as one of the Lancet 12? Wakefield was coordinator for the MMR litigation Pilot Study AND a lead researcher in the Lancet 12, both studies being conducted at the RFH.

Wakefield as coordinator of Barr’s MMR litigation Pilot Study funded by the LAB would have been working with William Kessick both as a child litigant and a Lancet 12 member. Barr would have known this too.

William Kessick and the others who were in both studies underwent the battery of invasive tests twice, once as a Lancet 12 participant and then as a litigant in the Legal Aid Board Pilot study. This involved 2 sets of blood/urine tests, 2 barium meals, 2 colonoscopies, 2 lumbar punctures etc. Is it really the case that one set of tests was charged to the NHS and the other to the Legal Aid Board?

Poor William Kessick, who went through all that unnecessary testing, should not have a Lancet 12 guinea pig because he had had the MMR vaccine, information that had been placed in the public domain as far back as November 1996 by his mother when she gave her interview to The Independent. According to Dr Long, Ms Kessick in her May 1995 phone call to Dr Wakefield advised him of the “wrenching story of her son’s descent into autism after having received the MMR vaccine a few years previously”.

But it gets worse. William Kessick wasn’t just a claimant in the MMR litigation, he was one of eight Lead cases to be pleaded in the UK Courts. All the claimants children depended on the results of the eight Lead cases. If the 8 Lead cases failed so did every other claim in the MMR litigation, as was seen in 2003 when the Legal Services Commission removed funding for ALL of the children.

Of the May 1995 phone call from Rosemary Kessick to Andrew Wakefield, Dr Long states that it “led to a second set of circumstances and what I will call the Second Study or Study Two. I emphasize this point now because every online and book treatment of Dr Wakefield I have read has conflated the two studies thus leading to an improbable series of events that led to the hostile or critical narrative related at the beginning of this paper”

Little wonder that the two studies have become conflated when at least one of the children involved was included in both.
Justice Bell played a major role in the great MMR swindle. He was the appointed judge, but then announced that he would hand over the case to another judge. So, knowing that he would not be responsible for the consequences, Bell corruptly made an order that would ensure that injustice was done and that none of the children damaged by any of the various MMR vaccines would be compensated. How the Government, the pharmaceutical companies and their insurers must have laughed.
Bell made an order that the entire action would be based on tests on eight children, an obvious fraud by Bell:
1. Why was he making an order when he had already announced that he was leaving the action?
2. The tests he ordered would involve the children being exposed to unethical tests, as shown by the GMC ruling on Wakefield and his fellow crooks. So the tests should not have been carried out at all.
3. Half of the test children were to be chosen by the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers!
4. Bell did not specify what results would be regarded as +ive or –ive. It was like an examination where there is no means of marking answers and no passmark.
5. Bell had decided that the central issue was autism, even though many of the children were not autistic and had quite different and well-evidenced damage.
Bell then departed and a story was put about that he had discovered a conflict of interest – a distant relative with autism. That really is odd because he had pre-announced his departure, which means that he had been aware of the conflict of interest before issuing his order. He should have stepped down the instant he became aware of the conflict of interest.
But the story of the conflict of interest was probably a lie. Bell’s maneuver was one that is familiar to pickpockets and judges. Pickpockets ensure that they cannot be caught with the loot on their person by passing it to a collaborator. The thief doesn’t have the loot and the man with the loot didn’t do the thieving. Bell handed the action to a new judge who would run it according to Bell’s order. Bell would not be on the scene when the action inevitably failed. The failure would be on the watch of a different judge, one who had not issued the original order.
The new judge was Justice Keith, freshly arrived from Hong Kong and ignorant of the new Civil Procedure rules. Keith was keen to be accepted by the corrupt English judiciary, the alternative would be to return to China where corruption is not as profitable. Keith’s ignorance was such that he was guided by the lawyers when he should have been controlling them. Keith should have looked at the order controlling the litigation and thrown it out but he chose to ensure injustice. No wonder the action cost a staggering amount of money and not a single child was compensated.
At the end of the process, Keith had the impertinence to point out that some of the cases had not been allowed to present their evidence at all. But the action had been managed by Keith so the perversion of the course of justice was by him. Keith’s crocodile tears were most unconvincing.
But Keith hadn’t finished helping the Government, pharmaceutical corporations and their insurers. The action over autism had failed and the autistic cases had been thrown out when Keith received an application for an order for the Dublin laboratory that had tested the samples of the autistic children, to open its doors to inspection by an expert appointed by the pharmaceutical companies. There was no basis for Keith to agree to this request because:
1 The laboratory was in Eire and therefore outside Keith’s jurisdiction.
2 The relevant part of the litigation had ended.
Keith chose to do something quite bizarre. He wrote to the Dublin court to request an order for the Dublin laboratory to open its doors to the defendants’ expert. The Dublin court would have been deceived into thinking that this request was relevant to ongoing UK litigation. The Dublin court issued the order and the expert, Professor Bustin, made his inspection and produced his 2004 report.
Later, the true purpose of this farce was revealed. The defendants in the US litigation applied to Keith for a copy of Bustin’s 2004 report, and Keith eagerly agreed to this request. Now the reason for Keith’s letter to the Dublin court became apparent. The US authorities wanted Bustin to inspect the Dublin laboratory but a request from them to the Dublin court would have been rejected as the laboratory was not used by the US defendants. So Keith fabricated a reason for Bustin to inspect the laboratory. That makes it clear that this had been a dirty conspiracy executed by Keith to supply the US authorities with material they could not obtain by legitimate means.

Friday 5 March 2010

We need a Public Inquiry into the financing of Wakefield

The Fitness to Practice Panel at the General Medical Council has recently delivered the Findings of Fact following an investigation into allegations of “serious professional conduct” by Wakefield and two colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital.

Wakefield was one of the most highly- paid experts in the MMR 1 litigation to address a possible link between MMR/MR vaccines and Autism /IBD. He was contracted into this role by Mr Richard Barr, initially of Dawbarns solicitors, then Hodge Jones and Allen and later, Alexander Harris.

Charges 3 and 4 on the GMC charge sheet refer specifically to Wakefield’s role in supplying material to that Barr used to extract money from the Legal Services Commission. The Legal Aid Board, as it was then, awarded an initial £55,000 to the lawyers. Charge 4 (a) (i) was that Wakefield failed “to cause the legal Aid Board to be informed that investigations represented by the clinicians as being clinically indicated would be covered by NHS funding”. Charge 4(a)(ii) was that Wakefield “caused or permitted the money supplied by the Legal aid Board to be used for purposes other than those for which you said it was needed and for which it had been granted”

The findings on these two charges show that Wakefield acted dishonestly with funding while acting as an expert witness.

An investigation is needed into how the LSC was defrauded? Wakefield was hired by lawyers appointed by the LSC to represent the claimant children, and it is the lawyers who must explain how the money was purloined. What is the LSC doing to recover the money and ensure that such a fraud cannot be perpetrated again?

Lord Taverne asked about the squandering of £15m of public funding on the MMR-Autism IBD litigation in Parliament on 16th June 2004…“The Legal Aid Fund has been depleted and, indirectly, the access to justice for others who might have benefited from the proper use of the £15 million has been prejudiced”… “despite the lack of any evidence in support of them, in 1994 the legal Aid Board, as it was then, funded claims for compensation against the pharmaceutical companies”… “after 10 years and the expenditure of more than £15m, not surprisingly no evidence has emerged to provide a prima-facie case. Earlier this year the Legal Services Commission withdrew support and declared that the failure to find evidence meant that the case was very likely to fail. It also observed that aid should never have been granted, because the courts are not the place to prove new medical truths”

We need a Public Inquiry into how £15m was squandered on litigation that (a) by the LSC’s own admission should not have received legal aid, (b) was unable to provide a prima-facie case, (c) included the funding of a lead expert witness shown to have used the funds inappropriately, and (d) denied access to justice for non-ASD/IBD claims because Wakefield and the lawyers had walked away with the money.

Lord Taverne summed it up “it was a disgrace that legal aid was ever granted. The so-called research was, and was always likely to be a farce. None of the families benefited by a penny from the whole operation”

WAKEFIELD ADVOCATE

James A Moody DC Bar #294504
Moody is an American lawyer and a NeoCon “Advocate for a Competitive Economy”. He has been acting for “Wakefield Inc” the corrupt empire of crooked doctor Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield Inc aims to make money out of vulnerable parents of autistic children and Moody has been trying to protect the criminal empire by making bogus allegations against witnesses. He’s done this from the safety of the USA when his targets have been in the UK. His latest blunder is to circulate on the internet material that Justice Keith ordered was confidential to the claimants and could only be used with their claims. But who gave him that material, Andrew Wakefield?

Thursday 25 February 2010

ILLEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

Legal Services Commission. 4 Abbey Orchard Street London SW1P 2BS
Colin Stutt, a barrister, is a legal adviser to the Legal Services Commission, where he works on both legal and policy issues and regularly acts as a spokesman for the Commission. He has involvement in high profile cases, group actions, clinical negligence, the principles of funding, alternative dispute resolution and the European Convention on Human Rights. He drafted procedures to restrict clinical negligence work to particular firms. He was responsible for drawing up the Funding Code under which the Commission funds litigation.

This man determines the outcome of key Group Actions. He allocates work to friendly, ie corrupt, law firms so that claimants are swindled out of deserved compensation. In this way he protects Government and its pals by perverting the course of justice. A stark example is the way that victims of the first Gulf War found their claims being handled by corrupt firm Hodge Jones and Allen. Stutt controlled the funding of the action ensuring that the victims lost. The performance of Hodge Jones and Allen, Stutt’s chosen firm, was so outrageous that it became the subject of a House of Lords debate and the Countess of Mar led a deputation to the Legal Services Commission where Stutt declared his satisfaction with Hodge Jones and Allen’s performance but could only bluster when facts about HJA’s performance were presented. He also controlled the swindle of the MMR vaccine victims, using Hodge Jones and Allen again and introducing a new funding code in June 2003 so that funding could be withdrawn.

David Keegan plays a key role in protecting Government through controlling the funding and handling of key cases. He runs a unit that operates under different names eg Special Cases Unit, High Costs Cases Unit. In reality his job is to ensure that cases embarrassing to Government are steered in the right direction. He does this by ensuring that cases are handled by a clique of friendly firms. He also uses straightforward bribery by operating a scale of payments but going outside that scale when it suits him. He has shown a special interest in terrorist cases and has linked very closely with Blair’s dodgy pals - Henry Hodge, whose firm was given the Gulf War and MMR Group Action contracts and who went on to be President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Hodge’s firm was permitted to claim £198 an hour for the work of unqualified staff in 1998, contrast that with Keegan’s proposal that a QC's fees for trial preparation work should be between £91 to £145 an hour. In the MMR litigation the three QCs appointed to represent the claimants were given £1.5m for running the action up a blind alley.

John Baker is a solicitor who works for the Legal Services Commission. He is based in Bristol but, strangely, was made case worker for the MMR litigation that was being run in London, where he was subordinate to Stutt and Keegan. He helped ensure that the entire action was guided to destruction and the damaged children were denied justice.

BEWARE

Clifford George Miller, Burnhill Business Centre, 50 Burnhill Road, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3LA,
This incompetent solicitor even got stitched up in court by his non-lawyer wife and he was left bereft. His business has gone down the pan and he’ll be looking for suckers. He advertises his firm as being based at a business unit in Beckenham; it isn’t, he no longer has that unit and his firm is defunct. In the meantime he’s been spin-doctoring for phony Doctor Andrew Wakefield in a way that will make Wakefield’s fall more painful. He concocted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against Times Newspapers in order to stop stories exposing Wakefield’s misdemeanors. That complaint will now come back to haunt Wakefield.

NOT A SOLICITOR

Alan Care. Described as a “lawyer” and “senior litigation executive” this man has for years been misrepresented as a solicitor. He is nothing of the sort. He was a member of the Institute of Legal Executives until his membership was terminated. He worked for Leigh Day until he got the boot. He then worked at Russell Jones and Walker before joining Thomson Snell and Passmore. Described as a “shyster” by solicitor Richard Barr of Dawbarns, he suppressed key evidence in the OP sheep dips litigation. Despite being unqualified he has been one of England’s key Personal Injury operators. His trick is to take cases against powerful opponents and then to get paid off by those opponents, leaving his clients with next to nothing. He worked this scam in cahoots with QC John Melville Williams, now retired. Clients could accept the situation he had created or face the threat of bankruptcy. That trick that is in common use by English lawyers. Now at Thomson Snell & Passmore 3 Lonsdale Gardens Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 1NX

Monday 15 February 2010

MORE LEGAL INTERFERENCE

Jim Moody is an American lawyer and a NeoCon “Advocate for a Competitive Economy”. He has been acting for “Wakefield Inc” the corrupt empire of Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield Inc aims to make money out of vulnerable parents of autistic children and Moody has been trying to protect the criminal empire by making bogus allegations against witnesses. He’s done this from the safety of the US. His latest blunder is to circulate on the internet material that Justice Keith ordered was confidential to the claimants and could only be used with their claims. But who gave him that material, Andrew Wakefield?

Moody has been working with Clifford Miller to disrupt Brian Deer's expose of Wakefield. They concocted allegations against Deer and sent them to the Press Complaints Commission. Now they want to postpone the consideration of those complaints.

Wakefield is said to have resigned from his lucrative position in Thoughtful House. Untrue, he was sacked because he besmirches the name of Thoughtful House. He may also find that Polly Tommey is not as receptive to his advances as she previously was.

LEGAL INTERFERENCE

Abel Hadden
Works for the PR firm Bell Pottinger. Interferes in legal matters by trying to get favourable media coverage, including the suppression of stories. He represented dodgy doctor Wakefield and his phony charity, Visceral. Why does a doctor and a small charity need an expensive PR man? Did Visceral’s Chairman, Nick Lander, wonder what was going on? Hadden has achieved nothing for Wakefield except to ensure that his fall is from a greater height.

Thursday 11 February 2010

Henry Hodge

Why has the Law Society so helpful to crooked solicitors? Henry Hodge, now deceased, was a Vice-President. Hodge set up his firm, Hodge Jones and Allen(HJA) with Jones and Allen at a meeting in the Freemasons Arms! He was a pal of Derry Irvine who went on to become Britain’s worst-ever Lord Chancellor. When Tony Blair and Cherie Booth joined Derry Irvine’s chambers HJA gave them briefs to get them started. Hodge and Patrick Allen were key promoters of the Blairs and invited them to settle in Islington where they met in each others’ homes designing the corrupt New Labour project. When Labour came to power it needed funds to pay off the huge debts it had run up. Blair made the corrupt deal with Bernie Ecclestone. There was also embarrassment over the way people had been exposed to unsafe pharmaceuticals so Blair made a deal with Big Pharma that is described in “Labour of Love” by Janet Jones, wife of Ivor Richard, a book dealing with Ivor Richard’s period as Lord Privy Seal in the Blair Government. 16th November 1997 “…the pharmaceutical industry is in and out of Downing Street. And the industry is giving money to New Labour. Ivor has a word with Margaret Jay. “yes,” she says. Where are the Pharma donations in Labour’s accounts?
Blair needed a corrupt law firm to protect Big Pharma and needed to pay off his old pal Henry Hodge, Deputy Chairman of the Legal Aid Board. The Board gave the contracts for the three embarrassing Group Actions to Hodge’s firm, Hodge Jones and Allen, despite the fact that HJA had never tendered for the contracts. Lawyers’ complaint led to an inquiry by Hugh Glancy QC, but the Legal Aid Board denied that there had been an inquiry even though HJA admitted it publicly. Glancy’s report and the minutes of the meeting were kept a secret and HJA kept the contracts and was allowed to vastly overclaim eg £198 per hour for unqualified staff. Most of that money went into the pockets of the partners – Hodge and Allen. It was straightforward bribery, pay-back for Hodge, a member of Labour’s "1,000 Club" of leading party donors. Derry Irvine had made it clear that favoured lawyers would get be expected to make financial contributions to Labour. Derry Irvine resolved Hodge’s conflicted position by making him a judge! And this arch-swindler of legal aid sat on the Lord Chancellor’s advisory committee on legal aid. Hodge was then given another opportunity to help the Labour Party. He was made President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, where he was able to enforce the secret Labour plan to enhance its electoral position by manipulating immigration. But before Hodge became a judge, HJA set up the giant MMR-Autism scam by applying for funding from the Legal Aid Board to pursue the phony Wakefield theory. That sent the litigation up a blind alley, ensuring that damaged children would not be compensated, that Big Pharma and the Government would be protected while corrupt lawyers would profit. A similar job was done on the other two contracts that had been corruptly awarded to HJA, Gulf War and Sheep Dip. It’s ironic that Blair concocted Gulf War II while Blair’s corrupt pals ensured that the victims of Gulf War I were swindled out of compensation for their injuries.
Hodge’s links to a corrupt Government were enhanced by his wife - Margaret Hodge, who became a Labour Government Minister. Margaret Hodge was one of the Islington mob and she became Chair of the Council but denied resources to social workers, which led to resignations. Margaret Hodge got a job with Price Waterhouse. But when evidence emerged of child abuse in Islington children’s homes Margaret Hodge issued denials and slandered a victim, for which she was forced to apologise. She went on to become Children’s Minister in the Blair Government!
Patrick Allen set up his firm with Hodge and Jones at a meeting in the Freemasons Arms! He too played a key role in setting up the corrupt New Labour project with the Blairs.