There are, quite literally, millions of law-related domain names that I could use to expose Scottish legal corruption. BentJudges.com is ideal because the name is somewhat memorable and 'judges' in the context of the name applies not only to the Scottish Judiciary – but to many other Scottish legal processes and functions. For example, lawyers who 'judge' other lawyers who stand accused of professional misconduct.
The primary goal of this website is to protect the public from a legal profession that is rotten to its very core. If I can save just one little old lady or trusting client from any of the legal rogues unmasked on here then my efforts will be, entirely worthwhile.
My secondary goals are:
- To advocate the establishment of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission
- To advocate an end to legal self-regulation in Scotland
- To attain an assurance from the Judiciary and Scottish Government that they acknowledge and are actively resolving the "Named Respondent" issue
Technical Goals of BentJudges.com
The primary technical goal of this website is to become one of the most-visited legal websites on the planet. There is no question that it will rapidly become the most-visited Scottish legal website, for reasons that I will now explain:
Over 200 pages are search engine optimised. Additionally, about 70 Scottish law firms now have what is effectively their own microsite, which should appear in the top 5 of any internet search. Previously, I've achieved No.1 in relation to one of the biggest law firms in Edinburgh – a firm with enormous IT resources of their own. So there's no reason why I won't hit No.1 for a high percentage of these other law firms.
That's not even the half of it though. Incredibly, the microsites and SEO is the least of the crooks' problems. That's because I'm using cutting-edge technology to drive specific traffic to the site. For example, clients, potential clients, academics and other professionals who may use the services of lawyers or who may have a professional or even personal interest in the information imparted here.
My 3-month goal is to secure a top 5 Google (.com) result for the majority of Scots Law related phrases. So if you trawl deep enough you might find the odd page which seems out of place and not befitting with the website theme. You may also find some annoying text at the bottom of some pages.
At the time of writing, this website is hosted in the USA. The site is also resident on my dedicated Linux server and I will switch to this once the traffic increases. The entire site, along with other unpublished pages and information, some of which is of an extraordinarily sensitive nature, is also backed up on a Chinese server.
Q & A – Disclosure is ALL!
How do I know the information on here is accurate and true?
The evidential integrity of the information disseminated on here is of the highest possible standard. The vast majority of what you read is sourced from SSDT prosecutions and civil and criminal court cases. In most cases the lawyers involved accept that their conduct amounted to professional misconduct and many of the misconduct prosecutions include findings of dishonesty. The publication of this information is, unquestionably, in the public interest.
Some of the individuals named on here have also been found guilty in the criminal courts of crimes such as fraud, and assaulting women. For example, in 2004, Louise Hay, a Dundee-based solicitor, pled guilty to defrauding the Inland Revenue. She was fined a massive 750 pounds and somehow managed to avoid being struck off. That is not an opinion – it is a matter of established fact.
Most pages have a reference section, which links to an independent evidence source or external website. For the vast majority of solicitors' pages there is a link to the solicitor profession's disciplinary findings.
Does BentJudges.com report on every disciplinary finding?
No! Incredibly, the rogues gallery only reports on a fraction of all available online disciplinary findings. If you click here the SSDT website will open in a new window, where you can read EVERY publicised professional misconduct finding from the past 15 years. At the time of writing, there are 402 distinct pages.
Yet many of these lawyers and firms DON'T appear on this website. Why? Because I only focus on the most serious offenders.
What is Professional Misconduct?
Throughout the website you will read about something called professional misconduct. So what exactly is that? Essentially misconduct is when a lawyer takes a course of action that is unethical or illegal.
For example: acting in a conflict of interest situation, grossly over-billing a client (or clients), unjustified enrichment, a lawyer acting to protect his own interests instead of his client's interests, misappropriating client monies or assets, refusing to represent a client for political or improper reasons, making false or misleading statements, hiding evidence, manufacturing evidence, tampering with evidence, abandoning a client, money laundering, failure to detect money laundering or to follow professional guidelines in relation to money laundering or the proceeds of crime, failing to disclose all relevant facts to a client or to a court, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument.
As you will see from this website, the above list is not even close to being exhaustive!
Professional misconduct in Scotland is defined in Sharp v The Law Society of Scotland 1984 SC 129:
'"There are certain standards of conduct to be expected of competent and reputable solicitors. A departure from these standards which would be regarded by competent and reputable solicitors as serious and reprehensible may properly be categorised as professional misconduct"
What institutions, individuals or law firms tried to sabotage your predecessor website?
The highest profile attack was a combined effort by Scotland's tyrannical Judiciary and Scottish Court Service. The Justice Minister had to answer for this in Parliament. Prior to that attack, my 'Uncle' Max's law firm, Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson, tried to shut me down. Macroberts LLP also had a pop and there have been numerous others.
More recently, one of my web servers was hacked from an internet cafe in Tunisia. I don't have any evidence the legal mafia were behind that one – it might have just been a random attack.
Why don't they just take court action against you?
Precisely. Scotland's legal mafia know exactly who I am – yet they refuse to take this obvious course of action. The reason? Because each and every individual and law firm featured on this website know that they stand correctly accused of serious wrongdoing.
Do you require help from the Mainstream Media to raise the website's profile?
Nope. One of the most fascinating aspects about this website is that it requires no external help whatsoever. It is entirely self-publicising and self-perpetuating.
In the amount of time it would take me to look up a journalist, meet with her/him and visit the newsagents to buy the paper, I could, for example, write 5 shell scripts that would generate 1000 times the level of traffic any broadsheet article ever could.
If the chocolate teapots want to write a story, then that's great- any publicity is good publicity and all that. But I certainly won't be wasting any time chasing them!
Did Sheriff Principal Bowen QC grant you a right of audience?
Yes, he did. I was quite surprised by his decision because I couldn't find a precedent and so I was flying a bit of a kite. His decision was no doubt influenced by the fact that my role was unpaid.
Strangely though, his Interlocutor makes no mention of the fact it was the pursuer's son who addressed the court on the pursuer's behalf! It's not the sort of precedent the legal profession likes to publicise, which to a certain degree I can understand.
I've just remembered… My girlfriend fell asleep during proceedings and we all had a good laugh about it – Bowen QC included! So she shuffled over towards the wall and hid herself behind a coat stand for the next 3 hours. The Sheriff Principal's courtroom is very different from most other courtrooms in that it contains movable or throwable objects like coat stands!
Is it true that some law firms banned their employees from viewing your predecessor website?
Yes, at least two of the bigger firms did. It was actually a lawyer from one of those firms who told me that the staff had been verbally warned to stay away. Some of them, however, just couldn't resist and were caught revisiting the site! That's when their IT dept. stepped in and introduced a domain block.
I'd like to think that those same lawyers will visit this website.
How do I go about asking you a question on here?
Just email me!