A barrister has had his latest claim for race discrimination thrown out of court, after asserting that black women don't go to Oxbridge, that the tribunal was biased and fraudulent and that Elvis lives on the moon.
John Iteshi was called to the Bar in 2007, but as he has not undergone pupillage he cannot practise as a barrister. He applied for two jobs at British Telecom, one as a paralegal, the other as an employment lawyer - but was unsuccessful and so brought a claim for racial discrimination.
HH Judge McMullen QC, sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, threw out the case. He pointed out that no one had been recruited at all for the paralegal position as a result of a recruitment freeze, and that BT had simply found more suitable candidates for the employment role. Iteshi disputed this, claiming that BT had presented the tribunal with fabricated CVs of other candidates. This was on the grounds that "it was well known that black women did not go to Oxford or Cambridge". He also asked Judge McMullen to recuse himself from the case, on the basis that he was guilty of "fraud, lack of credibility, evasion, dodging and failing to respond".
Judge McMullen refused to recuse himself, and in a superb judgment absolutely went off on one. He pointed out that Iteshi has previous form - "at the present time, some 15 appeals have been disposed of (none in his favour, as I understand it) and there are some 7 cases still before us, all against different Respondents". He noted that plenty of black women had been to Oxbridge, "as is apparent to anybody with any familiarity with the modern legal professions and admission of candidates to Oxford and Cambridge." And he considered that the Attorney General might wish to consider Iteshi's conduct. Presumably along with the lengthy letter that Iteshi had previously sent him.
In summing up, Judge McMullen continued: "It appears to me that he joins in a grim carousel. He needs a job, applies and fails to get interviewed or appointed, he brings proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, which fail, and then he brings proceedings in the EAT, which fail... He employs absurd logic... he has never taken drink or unlawful drugs, he is not a madman, and so the Judges who do not follow his submissions and do not find in his favour must be wrong and biased. There is no logic in that proposition. The application is dismissed."
Tip Off ROF
John Iteshi was called to the Bar in 2007, but as he has not undergone pupillage he cannot practise as a barrister. He applied for two jobs at British Telecom, one as a paralegal, the other as an employment lawyer - but was unsuccessful and so brought a claim for racial discrimination.
HH Judge McMullen QC, sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, threw out the case. He pointed out that no one had been recruited at all for the paralegal position as a result of a recruitment freeze, and that BT had simply found more suitable candidates for the employment role. Iteshi disputed this, claiming that BT had presented the tribunal with fabricated CVs of other candidates. This was on the grounds that "it was well known that black women did not go to Oxford or Cambridge". He also asked Judge McMullen to recuse himself from the case, on the basis that he was guilty of "fraud, lack of credibility, evasion, dodging and failing to respond".
Judge McMullen refused to recuse himself, and in a superb judgment absolutely went off on one. He pointed out that Iteshi has previous form - "at the present time, some 15 appeals have been disposed of (none in his favour, as I understand it) and there are some 7 cases still before us, all against different Respondents". He noted that plenty of black women had been to Oxbridge, "as is apparent to anybody with any familiarity with the modern legal professions and admission of candidates to Oxford and Cambridge." And he considered that the Attorney General might wish to consider Iteshi's conduct. Presumably along with the lengthy letter that Iteshi had previously sent him.
 |
Some black students at Cambridge |
In summing up, Judge McMullen continued: "It appears to me that he joins in a grim carousel. He needs a job, applies and fails to get interviewed or appointed, he brings proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, which fail, and then he brings proceedings in the EAT, which fail... He employs absurd logic... he has never taken drink or unlawful drugs, he is not a madman, and so the Judges who do not follow his submissions and do not find in his favour must be wrong and biased. There is no logic in that proposition. The application is dismissed."
Comments
279
272
279
281
283
266
Zimbabwe is about white supremacy! (http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion249.16160.html)
Some lovely comments here. (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/firms-reject-candidates-basis-their-accents-research-suggests)
Will President Obama Save the Black Race? (http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/articles/2993/1/Will-President-Obama-Save-the-Black-Race/Page1.html)
301
266
With 15 cases at least he is obviously not doing his career any good. Perhaps he should look at what is really stopping him getting jobs rather than sue everyone left right and centre, particularly BT which is one of the better organisations for encouraging women and people of different races.
271
278
An abundance of lawyers (better qualified and more talented than him and me) have struggled with jobs over the last few years, black, white or otherwise. This crusade he seems to be on probably did have a valid point at the beginning but just seems to have descended into wild finger-pointing.
Whilst 'institutional racism' and prejudice are still issues within our profession that the majority will agree are deplorable, playing the race card and resorting to personally insulting those that don't side with you all the time is not the way to win an argument. His conduct alone is enough to demonstrate why people wouldn't want to employ him
295
288
I cannot regret not appealing this Judgment because I did no have the funds and unfortunately did not meet the criteria for fee remission.
However, I am happy to use this forum to inform those that wish to know that everything an English judge says may not be accurate or put simply that crooks are operating in the English legal system!
Mr McMullen's judgment and the judgment of the Employment Tribunal which he purported to find no error of law are entirely fraudulent because they have both unreasonably evaded my complaints and manipulated or fabricated complaints and/or arguments that were never put before them.
There was nowhere in any part of my claim/appeal where I stated or even insinuated that Black women do not (or could not have) attend Oxford or Cambridge.
It was in no way part of my complaint before either the Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
For the avoidance of any doubt, my complaints were in relation to job applications.
In relation to the first job I applied for, below is an excerpt from my witness statement which was also repeated before His Honour (or His Dishonour) Mr McMullen, which he did not disclose properly or at all in his judgment;
"On or around 7 September 2009, I also noticed another advert for the post of Employment Paralegal/Legal Exec - Bletchley, Milton Keynes Ref: LGLG04 / 344492 on the same totally legal and also forwarded my CV via the website (____).
On or around 16 September 2009, I received an email from Mr John Edwards regarding the paralegal role, stating that: “We have now completed the recruitment for this role and will therefore not be reviewing any further candidates.” This email can be seen at page_______.
I immediately emailed back at around 14.05 pm, requesting further information to know when the recruitment was concluded, but never got any reply. At round 23:17 pm on that same day, I emailed Edwards again stating:
Dear John,
As, I did not receive any reply to my question about when the recruitment was concluded, I just wish to let you know that the position was advertised till today.
Please, let me know when you began and when you concluded the recruitment exercise?
Yours Sincerely,
Both emails can be seen in pages _________.
The Respondent’s response to my Discrimination questionnaire claimed that “the position of Paralegal was withdrawn from external recruitment” and that no appointment was made, despite having informed me in September 2009 that it had concluded recruitment for that post (_______)."
My second job application was for Employment Lawyer. A post plainly acknowledged by the Respondent to be a junior lawyer position. The Respondent went and dished out the most improbable CVs of about 2 Barrister of over 4 years experience as having applied for a junior Employment Lawyer post of about £45,000, loudly emphasising that they belonged to 2 Black women without any proof of their application for the job or even their ethnicity. My complaints were that the Respondent refused to disclose any evidence that the CVs were of those who applied for the particular job I applied (e.g. a redacted email forwarding such CVs) and that the Respondent at the hearing stage was misleadingly referring the post of Employment Lawyer job I applied for as Contentious Lawyer post ( even at times trying to insinuate that it was a Senior post) in apparent bid to demean my CV which evidently showed strong Employment Law background (as I worked as an Employment Law Specialist Adviser for a year).
The Tribunal evaded all the questions put to them particularly in the case of Paralegal which was evidently my strongest complaint, to produce a manipulated version of my complaint including fabricated argument that I said Black women do not attend Oxford or Cambridge.
Both the Tribunal and McMullen fraudulently evaded the fact that the contemporaneous documentary evidence from the Respondent showed that one Tom, a White male was selected for the job of Employment Paralegal at least before they purportedly withdrew it (which means that I was discriminated against because I was never invited to interview as Tom was) and failed to act like honest judges by failing to consider the fact that the Respondent initially tried to deceive the Tribunal that the paralegal post I applied which was boldly advertised for Bletchley was an International post based in Hong Kong only to abandon this false claim to advance a host of other hopeless claims that were of course unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence.
My challenge to all believers of the English legal system and lovers of Great Britain is to probe my assertion that Mr McMullen has promulgated a fraudulent judgment. It is not enough to be outraged that one has the guts to allege fraud against a revered Judge, without actually trying to help prove the accuser a mad man by way of showing the world how the appeal before Mr McMullen could have produced the kind of judgment he promulgated.
In a truly open and democratic society, no one should be too small to be right and no one should be too big to be accused of wrongdoing. Mr McMullen QC stands accused of fraud and it is only fair for him or anyone else to challenge my assertions by simply looking at the pleadings on my cases he has handled against the judgment he promulgated.
I can assure readers that I cannot be intimidated by the fact that judges (who were selected true indisputably fraudulent selection procedures and operate in a world-class judicial system where the conducts of Judges are ring-fenced from any independent scrutiny) have been ganging and queuing up to find against me in order to present me as a mad man.
History has thought us that truth cannot be buried or suppressed forever!
John Iteshi
307
245
Why are all comments apart from mine from anonymous users? What are people hiding from?
How come this article was published even before I got the case even though it was not in any mainstream news?
How come all comments came just the same day?
Dare I suggest that Fraudulent Judge McMullen QC and cohort have something to do with this publication!
Could this be why His Dishonor Judge McMullen QC was so excitedly unreasonably ( if not childishly) referring to his judgment in the case of Iteshi v BT on 22 September 2011 as he prepared to commit yet another judicial fraud in my case against OFWAT?
To those who think I will be cowed by moans about how many claims I have brought and about how irrational it is to criticize an English Judge (or deity), all you owe me as a human being is probe, probe and give me arguments not sentiments, by telling me in concrete terms (referring to the actual documents before Judge McMullen - not his half-truth/pure falsehood judgment)to tell the world exactly how irrational Mr Iteshi is. If you cannot do this, well, you might be better off continuing as an anonymous user because you are a coward and possibly a criminal or an accomplice to criminals.
The publisher, please beat my challenge and then feel free to rubbish my name as you wish!
291
268
Firstly I should say that I am an Employment lawyer. I practice as one. I have read the judgments which are available, including the two most recent ones by Judge McMullen.
If those judgments are inaccurate and misquote your position, then why not appeal? Judge McMullen is literally risking his position if he produces a judgment which is not entirely truthful. Given his position, you can't realistically believe that any person with any common sense would think that he would do that and risk you taking further action. What are you asking us to believe?
Posting as an anonymous user is not cowardly. It is prudent. You are clearly and demonstrably and exceptionally litigious person, and no sensible person would expose themselves to a risk of an action. Rather than get so het up by anonymity, why not just argue the points in front of you? Your name is all over the internet with various diatribes centring how you and fellow black individuals are wronged and discriminated against. Whilst that may still be true, and racism is a problem we all face and the fight against it a very noble and necessary cause, you do yourself and your race a disservice by inferring into every decision which does not go your way a degree of racial injustice.
On the point of anonymity, by not remaining anonymous yourself, you have effectively destroyed any prospect of securing a job in the legal profession since no employer would wish to employ you as they would clearly open themselves to a race discrimination claim as soon as you left that company. Given your 22+ claims for just this thing when you have been simply turned down for a job (as I and every other white, black and asian person reading this has) then you have demonstrated yourself to be a very risky employee, and one who does not employ good sense.
The facts are these:
i) you only have a 2:2 degree - this is poor by modern standards
ii) you are not a qualified lawyer
iii) Your written English is poor (I could go through your post and pull errors out, but I needn't)
iv) You have an employment qualification and give employment advice, yet you have lost over 15 personal claims so far, with no successes (correct me if I am wrong) - I anticipate your argument against this to be that all the judges whom you have appeared before have been biased against you (ref your application to Judge McMullen to recuse on the basis of bias before he had heard your claim) - further, you make points which are frankly unarguable (such as your sex discrimination limb in the recent Ofwat case), not to mention your reference to black women at Oxbridge (I had many black female friends at Cambridge), also, your applications are unsupported by firm evidence such as the application for recusal
The fact is, your presentation of cases has been demonstrably poor, ill conceived and, frankly, cack-handed. If you feel that the judgments do not give the full picture then please feel free to give us the evidence which the judge refused to deal with, or which demonstrates culpability - at present, your lack of understanding of the legal process has made you unemployable and frankly has made you a bit of a laughing stock. This is not a group of white people laughing at a black guy as you will undoubtedly think; it is laughing at you and your poorly evidenced and illogical reasoning regardless of your race. The fact is you appear incapable, even given your qualifications, of spotting a good case or discerning a correct cause of action.
Take your post here, you believe that Tom was offered the job before the post was withdrawn and that means that you were racially discriminated against. Why? They are under no legal obligation to select you for interview, and there is no evidence there to suggest that the decision was linked to your race. What if Tom was black? The fact is that Tom may have been the only suitable candidate. To prove a racial discrimination case you must show that you have been treated less favourably than Tom , but must first give evidence which shows that you were turned down because of your race. The absence of such evidence does not meet the Madarassy test, which will lead to you failing to shifting the burden of proof onto the employer, and failing to win your case. There was no such evidence, and you have not mentioned any such evidence here. Your evidence appears to be that they shortlisted Tom and not you, and then discontinued the post after their preferred candidate could not take it. The discontinuing and the shortlisting are two separate processes. You never made the shortlist and your qualifications are relatively poor.
Are there any of your cases against any employer which do not focus on racial discrimination, or do you believe that all employers who fail to shortlist you do not do so because of the colour of your skin? Would it change your mind if any of them can show a proportionate number of employers who are black?
As i am fond of an argument, please feel free to respond with your best evidence and I am prepared to admit that I am wrong.
One further word of warning - it is perfectly permissible to criticise a judge, that is what appeals are for - but to openly accuse a judge of fraud with no cogent evidence other than he found against you is unlikely to assist you in your pursuit of a career as a lawyer. I really would look at retraining.
271
304
Are you really an independent observer or oen of the Judges hiding under some strange name here?
You have dutifully evaded the issue to attack Mr Iteshi's person.
From reading the case in question, there is no mention of Mr Itehsi's degree class as the reason for his failure to be interviewed.
You have unreasonbly attacked his English without actually pointing out those horrible flaws. I bet from your vicious and bigotted attack, you would have listed those ertrors is they actually existed!
You even went as far as claiming that a person called to Bar is not a qualified lawyer. If he is not a qualified lawyer, exactly what is he?