Letter from the Legal Services Ombudsman

PS.

This is about that the Law Society let the two law-firms mess with me, and about that the Legal Services Ombudsman let the Law Society get away with this.

E-mail to the LSC, 7/7/08.

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

---

Complaint

---

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>	Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM
To: Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk>
Hi,   that's right, I did not recieve legal aid, since Morecrofts, said that they didn't participate, in the legal aid programme. (They said this about a month after the initial meeting, like explained in the complaint).   However, the Law Society, if I remember right, told me, that if I wanted to complain, about unprofessional conduct, from law-firms, in connection with the Duty Solicitor programme, then I should contact the LSC, I was told.   So that was why I was contacting your offices, earlier this year, I think it was.   So the complaint wasn't really in regards to the Legal Aid Programme, it was to do with law-firms, and  unproffesional conduct etc., from them (Morecrofts and EAD), in connection with the Duty Solicitor Programme. Yours sincerely,   Erik Ribsskog   On 7/7/08, Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk> wrote: Dear Mr Ribsskog Mrs Dillon forwarded your complaint to me as I am the Account Manager for Morecrofts. I have investigated your complaint and find that you did not received Legal Aid and did not become a client of Morecrofts. Therefore, I am unable to take your complaint any further. Kind regards Sarah Thompson Account Manager >>> "Erik Ribsskog" <eribsskog@gmail.com> 02/07/2008 20:04 >>> Hi, there has been a lot going on regarding this case. I was wondering, is this e-mail to do with the e-mail I sent to Fiona Dillon at the LSC, earlier this week? Thanks in advance for the reply! Yours sincerely, Erik Ribsskog On 7/2/08, Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk> wrote: > > Dear Mr Ribsskog > > I have investigated your complaint and found that you did not receive > advice funded by the Legal Services Commission. Therefore, I am unable > to to investigate the matter further as it is not a Legal Services > Commission matter. It also seems from the correspondence that this > matter is also outside the Law Society's jurisdiction. Therefore,  I > cannot see how you can progress this complaint further. > > Kind regards > > Sarah Thompson > > Account Manager > > > ************************************************************************************ > Disclaimer > > This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for the > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its unauthorised > use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the > intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return > e-mail. > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be intercepted and > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether to send > information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services Commission > are available from > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/our_regional_network.asp > > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record and > retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and for > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission policy on > staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and e-mail > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken > when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts can be > entered into on our behalf by e-mail. > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission. > > The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for known > viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own > risk. > > ************************************************************************************ > >

---

European Human Rights Court: E-mail sent 12/4/08.

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: ECHRvisitors@echr.coe.int
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:14:59 +0100
Subject: Being used as a 'target guy' by three different governments.

Hi,

I'm a Norwegian citizen living in Britain.

I have to say I'm a refugee from Norway.

I know I'm supposed to send a letter to the Hich Court of Human Rights in
Europe, but I'm having some problems with my printer,
so I hope it's alright that I'm sending an e-mail.

I've overheard that I have been followed by some 'mafia' in Norway, in 2003.

In 2005, I was chased away from my uncles farm in Norway, by some people
with guns and dogs, that I overheard saying that were going
to shoot me.

This year, I've overheard that I've been used as a 'target-guy'.

And it seems that I have been having phoney water-meter inspectors from
probably the CIA in my flat, in 2007.

I think this started when I went to Detroit in 2005.

Then I had to wait at the imigration-control, for several hours, being
questioned, inbetwen the questioning-offices was taking phone-calls.

Then he said they couldn't let me in, since I didn't have a bond in Norway.

So then I think they started to use me as a target-guy.

And I also suspect that the Norwegian and British governments are involved.

Then americans sent me back to Oslo, via Paris, in what seemed like a
'terminal' (like in the movie) plot, since they had written something in my
passport,
that I suspect would have led the French imigration-control, to send me back
to America again, had they seen what the Americans had written in my
passport.

Also, in Britain, the Police have refused to give me any help, but I think
have just let me go on, even if I suspect there was some mafia, in the
company, Arvato
Service Ltd., that I have been working in, in Liverpool, in 2005 and 2006.

The Police didn't give me any help or advice, even if I contacted them many
times, and they still just pretend that there is nothing going on.

And there are collegues that were working there, that I suspect something
could have happened with, but the Police just pretend there have been
nothing going
on, even if I think it is my right to know what has been going on there,
since I was working there.

It was like slavery, working there, and I'm trying to a case ran throug the
British court-system.

But the Police wont even look at the case, even if there were being used
illigal management methods there etc.

The Police sent me to the CAB, to get the case up for the Crowns Court, but
no lawyers want to help me, under the Duty Solicitors Programme, and the
British Police are just harassing and lying etc, so I suspect that there
could be some type of intellegence-activity, behind this, that no
organisations or
institutions want to help me in Norway or Britain, including Amnesty, the
Red Cross and Human Rights Watch etc.

I suspect that this could be due to some type of Goverment cover-up plan, in
connection with what went on at Arvato, where I suspect Nordic women were
being the subject of traficcing etc.

I've been contacting the Norwegian Special Police, Kripos, but they dont
anser my calls/emails.

The organisation responsible for them, Politidirektoratet, dont answer my
emails.

The Norwegian embassy in London, and three Norwegian ministries,
Justisdepartementet (The Justice Dep.), UD (The Foreign Ministry), and
Fornyings og
Adminstrasjonsdepartementet. (Translates to Renewal and Administration
Minstry).

Neighter of these institutions/ministries are answering my emails.

I contacted the SMK (The Prime-ministers Office), in Norway.

And complained on the three ministries.

But they are ignoring my complaint, they are acting irresponsible, I would
say, and are just refering me to the Sivilombudsmannen.

Who is the Ombudsman, in Norway, that deals with irregularitites from the
Goverment administration.

But I think, that the Prime Ministers Office, should have a look at this,
because this is regarding three ministries.

I think, that the SMK probably are involved, since they wont even look at
this.

And it's not allowed to use ones citizens as target-guys/spies, which it
seem's to me that has been going on.

And I'm not sure if the Sivilombudsmannen, have any real power over the
Government.

And I think, using ones citizens as target-guys/spies, on some mafia etc.,
without even asking the citizen if he want's this.

I think this is a serious crime towards the human rights.

And neighter the Norwegian or British Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, wants
to help me with this, so I think they are probably being
told by some Government inteligence not to help me, or something like this.

So I don't really know who else that could look at this.

So I hope the European Human Rights Court have the chance to have a look at
this!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

Resolution form

Part 1:

Mr. Nick Laird

EAD Solicitors

Prospect House

Colombus Quay

Liverpool

L3 4DB

Solicitors reference: I called your office last week (4/7), and was informed that you

were the person in the company that dealt with complaints.

My name:

Mr. Erik Ribsskog

Flat 3

5 Leather Lane

Liverpool

L2 2AE

Phone-number: 0151 236 3298.

Mobile: 0775 834 9954.

Part 2:

The person dealing with my case is or was:

I wasn't given the name of the Duty Solicitor that was supposed to meet me at the

Citizens Advice Bureau.

The person from your company that I spoke with on the phone was Mr. Michael Reiner.

My complaint is:

1. I think that the EAD, when they cancelled the Duty Solicitors meeting at the

CAB (Dale Street, Liverpool), on 5/4/07, should have taken the initative to set

up a new meeting with me, to replace the meeting that had been canceled.

They didn't want to set up a new meeting, even if I asked them about the

possiblity of them doing this, when I called their office, explained the matter,

and got to speak with their representativ Michael Reiner on 5/4.

I think that the usual thing to do when one have to cancel a meeting,

like this duty solicitor meeting, would be to set up a new meeting

to replace the meeting that was canceled.

And I think that it's unacceptable that this wasn't even offered.

Complaint 1: I would like to complain about the EAD refusing to set up

a new duty solicitor meeting after the inital meeting was canceled (by

themselves).

2. Michael Reiner informed me on the phone when I called the EAD

company on 5/4, that EAD didn't help members of the public with

calculating if they are eligable for legal aid in (non union) employment-

cases.

I don't think that the EAD should have agreed with the CAB to meet

me in a duty solicitor meeting, to help me calculate if I was eligable

for recieveing legal-aid, if this is a work-task that EAD doesn't do.

It makes no sence that they should agree with the CAB to help me

calculate if I'm eligable for legal-aid, and then when I call them after

they have canceled the meeting, then they tell me that they don't

do this type of work-task at all.

It makes no sense that they should agree with the CAB to do a work-

task they dont do.

I don't think it's acceptable for a solicotors firm to act like this.

Complaint 2 A.: I would like to complain about the EAD solicitors

firm first agreeing to help me, and then refusing this.

Complaint 2 B: I would like to complain about the EAD agreeing

to to do a work-task they don't do (Like Reiner explained, that

they didn't help people with calculating if they are eligable for

recieving legal-aid in individual employment-cases).

3. I think the EAD should have informed me on why they canceled

the meeting.

This was not informed to me by eighter the CAB or the EAD when I

called the EAD later.

I don't remember if I asked them a direct question about this, but I

think it's a natural thing to do when one cancel a scheduled meeting

like this.

Complaint 3: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn't

inform me of the reason for why they canceled the duty solicitor

meeting on the CAB 5/4.

4. I think the EAD should have informed me about the name of the

duty solicitor that was supposed to meet me.

I asked the CAB twice about the name of the solicitor (because I

reckoned that this was my contact with EAD, so it would be very

usefull for me to know this). But the CAB couldn't tell me who

it was, even if I asked them twice. (First when I was there for

the meeting that was canceled, and secondly when I called the

CAB a bit later that day, to get the right phonenumber for the EAD).

When I called EAD later the same day, and got to speak with Reiner,

I again asked who the dury solicitor that I was supposed to meet

at the CAB was, but Reiner didn't give me the duty solicitors name.

I think that if the duty solicitor cancels the meeting, and agrees with

the CAB that I could instead call the EAD and get advice from them

over the phone, then he should leave his name with the CAB, and

tell them to give me the his name when I show up for the meeting,

so that I know who to ask for when I call the EAD.

When I called the EAD I got transfered a bit around from person

to person, before I got to speak with Reiner. I think I was speaking

with eighter two or three other people before I got to speak with

Reiner.

That one don't know who to ask for, and that one have to explain

about the case several times to several people, could maybe lead

to that one gets a bit stressed, and maybe loses a bit of the focus

that one normally would have had on the case, if one had been

transfered directly to the right person.

So I think that this also added to the general level of unproffesionalism

that it seemed to me was quite characteristic to the way the EAD (and

the CAB) handled the meeting on 5/4. So even if it sounds a bit stupid

maybe, I think I'll also add a complaint about that I wasn't given the

duty solicitors name by the EAD (eighter directly or through the CAB).

Complaint 4: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn't

inform me about the name of the duty solicitor that was supposed

to meet me, even if I asked both the EAD (Reiner) and the CAB

about this.

5. I think that the EAD shouldn't have adviced me on such a complicated

case over the phone.

The EAD only wanted to help me over the phone, and therefore a

misunderstanding happened regard what type of case it was.

Since we only discussed it over the phone, and the EAD didnt get to see

the documents that belonged to the case, and I answered that it was an

employement-case when Reiner asked me, because this was what the

police had told me that it was.

If the EAD had agreed to meet me, they would have seen that it was,

(like the Morecroft solicitor told me on 11/4), that it also was an

harassment-case.

So, because of this misunderstanding, Reiner on the phone, told me that

the case had only got a three month 'time-limit', and that since it had

passed more than three months since the last incident in the case,

Reiner said that the three month 'time-limit' for the case had 'expired',

and that there really wasn't much hope regarding getting a case like

this through the justice-system, due to the three month 'time-limit' having

expired.

But, when I told this to the solicitor from Morecrofts on 11/4, the solicitor

told me that the case was also an harassment-case, and that it therefore

had a longer 'time-limit' than three months.

I think that, if EAD had done their job properly, then they would have

read through the cases documents, and also come to the same

conclusion.

Therefore I think that it was a bit irresponsible to give advice about this

over the phone. The way Reiner explaned it, was that it wasn't really much

hope for me to get any progress on the case due to the time-limit problem,

so it sounded on him like that it wasn't really worth the bother for me to

be using more time on trying to get help with the case.

So, if they do their advice-job in this way, I think it could lead to members

of the public being given wrong information (in the same way I was given

by Reiner on 5/4), which could lead to perfectly good cases being

given up by the person contacting them for advice.

And one could also think of many other types of misunderstandings that

could happen due to them doing their duty soliciting work and

legal-advice over the phone instead of in meetings, like one would think

would be more practical when it comes to legal-cases, that I reckon often

can be quite complicated.

Complaint 5A: I would like to complain about that the EAD gave me wrong

advice on the phone on 5/4 about the 'time-limit' for the case I had agreed

to meet them about in a duty solicitor meeting at the CAB (To get help

from them to see if I was eligable to recieve legal-aid for the case).

Complaint 5B: I would like to complain about the EAD giving advice on

the phone about cases that they have initialy agreed on to advice about

in meetings. Reiner from EAD said in the phone-call on 5/4 that one

needs to know the details of the case to see if someone are eligable for

legal-aid.

I think that if he didn't know the details of the case, then he shouldn't

advice on how long 'time-limit' there is for the case eighter.

I think this was an unaceptable way for them to do their duty solicitor

job. (Which I think this must be called, since they had canceled

the duty solicitor meeting, and I think the EAD and the CAB must

have agreed on that it was ok for me to call them for advice instead,

since the CAB adviced me to do this.)

And even if one can't call it a duty solicitor job, for some reason that

I'm not aware of, then I still think it's unaceptable of them to give advice

on how long 'time-limit' there is for a case, without knowing the details

of the case.

6. If one goes to the EAD web-page on the internet, on the url:

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/employment/, it says that 'EAD advices

on all aspects of employement law work for trade unions, union members

and individual workers'.

I don't think the EAD should put it on their web-site that they advice on

all aspects of employement law for individual workers, when they don't

individual workers at all, like Reiner said in the phone-call on 5/4.

He said that they only dealt with employment-cases that were trade-

union cases, and that this was the reason that they couldn't help me

with calculating if I was eligable for legal aid.

Also, the fact that they agreed with the CAB to meet me on 5/4, to

help me calculate if I was eligable for recieving legal-aid, fits with what

they write on the web-page, that they really help individual workers

with things like this.

So it's a bit unclear to me if the information on their web-page is wrong,

or if the information I was given by Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 was

wrong.

So I think I'll complain about that I have recieved contradicting information,

and then someone who are more experts on this can hopefully have a

look at it, and try to find out what these, to me, seemingly contradicting

statements are due to.

Complaint 6: I'd like to complain about that the information on the EAD

webpage says that the EAD advices individual workers in employement

cases, whereas Mr. Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 informed me that

EAD only gave advice about employement-cases when these cases

were trade-union cases.

Part 3

I am happy for you to deal with my complaint in writing.

I would like the following to sort out my complaint:

The most important thing to me, is to try to find a solution on how to get some

progress on the case, so that it is brought through the justice-system in an

appropriate way.

I think the complaint should be dealt with by you appropriately.

I've lost a bit of confidence in your company due to what happened on 5/4, so

I would like to see how your company deals with this complaint, before I decide

how I should go further with this.