A Win for David vs Goliath

Submitted by Chefleur

In the High Court of Judicature, little only me, with no formal training in law, but armed with just intelligence and perseverance was able to show that Attorneys ‘don’t know it all’.  In fact they don’t know a damn great deal.

Ironically, Omari Drakes of Clarke Gittens and Farmer, a prominent Law firm, was trashed, after he arrogantly stated that my matter was ‘statute bared’ and even blocked me from being able to serve on the absentee owner and 3rd Defendant.  Mr Smith of Smith & Smith Law firm [4th Respondents] also tried to dissuade me with the very rhetoric.  Yet, the Judge struck out the case after asking Mr Drakes what was his response to my showing proof and instances [from the Limitation Act, Part III] that it was not.  Mr Drakes said that I did not plead my case – his lamb in the bush. This is hilarious.  BCC in their defense to my claim said my case was prolix.  “What a mighty web we weave as we try to deceive”.  

Yet, Mr Drakes has refused to prepare the order [issued since August 2020] so that I can proceed to have the decision appealed or pay him the ‘blood money’/cost and move with a new Claim and Statement of Claim. What are they afraid of; the doer and enabler?

Fabian Walthrus, too, bragged that he was an Insurance Agent for 15 years and was adamant that the matter at hand was governed by the Insurance Act which as of 1997, prevents litigation against a ‘named beneficiary’.  This was the position of dozens of Attorneys from 2005 to 2015 when I got ‘mad’ and decided to handle my matters myself; inflaming the nobility.

Fabian Walthrus, like many others, could not read and understand that the substantive entity was a Group Pension Plan [from CBC] – tricked into paying out  the benefits to someone the Plan does not cater for.  Further, even if it were an Insurance Plan, Fabian Walters, Dawn Grant and dozens more could not decipher that the substantive entity was executed before 1997 and therefore that law doesn’t affect this Policy.  What do we have going for us (representation), Mr Blogmaster?

Here again, the matter was struck out on the ground that ‘Letters of Administration had expired’. Fabian Walthrus too is still to prepare the order so that I can file to appeal or pay the ‘vex money’ in cost and proceed with filing a new, robust claim.

Mr Blogmaster,  Justice must not only be served but must appear to have been served.  You tell me. What is happening here in these instances? This once noble profession now seems to be in the throes of prostitution.  Far too many attorneys are taking money and defending indefensible cases or bending the law and in so doing breaching the law.  Far too many Attorneys are being fingered for other illegal activities [land theft, misappropriating client’s money, etc].  We seriously have a crisis with a lot of these attorneys.

Little humble me – with NO Degree!