The story of Lisa McNally's absurd and malicious claim against me will be coming out in full in the very near future but her attempt to make taxpayers pay her legal costs for a personal claim relating to her Twitter account has made it into Private Eye magazine for the last two editions! As things stand bent Labour Sandwell Council are saying they will pay her costs which are in excess of £100,000 i.e. they are going to f*ck you over (and don't forget McNally is paid well in excess of £100k per year as Director of Public Health).
Leader "lol" Rajbir Singh is now trying to force me to pay for another legal case to prove what they are doing is unlawful in the full knowledge that I have no money. The three Tory MP's in Sandwell must take action here, and I will be sending them a detailed history of what bent Labour are trying to do. As we shall see in a later post, cowardly Singh was personally aware of the illegality of what Council employees were doing. He did nothing, and on top of his other disasters since May has f*cked-up again. The fact that this muppet is STILL trying to shaft me shows his character and the depths he is prepared to go to protect his own arse.
I will be writing below about the collapse of almost the entire "top" management structure in the bent Borough but two of the key players are still in post - Tour and McNally! As we shall see, McNally said she was off if she lost her case, but is still in post.
We know from McNally herself that the claim was a set-up between her, David Stevens and Surjit Tour in late January. I am making various professional conduct and other complaints concerning the actors in this affair but it is very obvious from the paperwork put before the Court that SMBC Solicitors Tour, Lynch and Maher-Smith (at least) had a substantial hand in the way the case was presented. In due course they may have to account for the seriously misguided "professional advice" they gave to McNally. That is not to absolve McNally since her campaign was absolutely vicious - she even wanted an order for me to be jailed if I went with 50m of her when I have never even met her!
The claim was purely personal based on her Twitter account and in the pre-action protocol process McNally sought a draconian "emergency" injunction to be followed by making the injuction "permanent". But the personal nature of the case and her vengeful attack on me was extended to claim £10,000 damages for herself. How the f*ck were Rajbir Singh and Stevens lawfully expecting the taxpayer to pay for her absurd and greedy claim?
More on this soon but here are the extraordinary threats McNally made to the High Court. She said this in her first statement:
Para 36
My future at Sandwell is now very uncertain. I am unsure how much longer I can continue to live with Mr Saunders' hateful campaign against me. I am upset that one man is providing me with such a negative experience and is leading me to want to give up a job that I once loved and leaving an environment in which I have great working relationships.
Solicitor Lynch at SMBC seems to have been involved in the preparation of the statement. We have already seen that she forgot to serve me with the emergency injunction application and here she used an out of date "statement of truth" when McNally signed to say that her evidence was true (and we shall come back to comment on that at a later date).
Statement of truth:
"I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed 26th February, 2021.
My solicitor pointed out to Lynch that the Statement of Truth signed by McNally was not compliant with the current Court rules. Accordingly, Lynch revised McNally's Statement as follows:
"I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
McNally signed this document on the 11th March, 2021.
The plot by Stevens, Tour and McNally soon began to unravel when my brilliant Solicitor, Mark Lewis of Patron Law, came on the scene and the Director of Public Health soon had to withdraw her malicious "emergency injunction" application (at a cost of several thousand pounds which she says you taxpayers should pay for her).
Of course, there was no "hateful campaign" and McNally was, for reasons that are not clear, advised to proceed. The plotters - with the professional help of Lynch and Maher-Smith - ploughed on to obtain a non-emergency injunction. It is not clear whether McNally has any insight into her own behaviour but she tried to throw the kitchen sink at me in a second statement which she signed as being true and that she was aware she could be in contempt of court if she lied:
Para 33
If my application for an injunction is refused, Mr Saunders will clearly resume his hostility. I can't go through that again and neither can my family. I would at the very least need to leave Sandwell Council and a job I otherwise love. However, since Mr Saunders has previously proved that he is willing to pursue people he doesn't like after they leave Sandwell, I will have to stop working in any position that involves any degree of public profile.
Para 34
My career, and my health, depends on the outcome of this case …
Statement of truth
I understand the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed by McNally - 10th June, 2021
My own second statement to the High Court said this:
I am very surprised at the Claimant's second statement dated 10th June 2021 that unless she gets her way she will, as a highly-paid professional, not only give up her job but walk away from her profession altogether. These threats to the Court were also made in the Claimant's abortive attempts to seek an injunction in February. The threats are improper. All I can say is that I note that despite the threats in February, the claimant did not carry them out when she did not obtain (or proceed with her application for) an injunction.
Of course, McNally has not left despite also trying to get the taxpayer to pay over £100,000 legal costs for her.
My Solicitor wrote this to bent Labour Sandwell on 12th August:
In your evidence, it was stated that Ms McNally would resign if she did not obtain an injunction. Please confirm that her notice has been tendered and indicates when it will be operative from. If not, please explain why such an unequivocal statement was made to the Court supported by a Statement of Truth? You will appreciate that such is a very serious matter. We suggest that any individuals complicit in such action seek independent advice. We reserve our client's rights against all such individuals if the court has been misled.
Suddenly another person who purports to be a solicitor came on the scene - our old "friend", Maria Price (posts passim and see legal notice below). Price responded with this nonsense on 16 August 2021 in the full knowledge that SMBC Solicitors had drafted and approved McNally's statements:
As regards Ms McNally tending her resignation, your interpretation of her statement is disputed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.