Terrorist Ex-Councillor Samuel Collingwood Smith / Vordrak / Sam Smith / BenvolaStar / Matthew Hopkins News - Convicted defamer, vexatious litigant, actual terrorist, GamerGator, stalker, extortionist (Prosperous Software Consulting Limited)

Ginger Piglet said:
Hello there. New member here - been lurking for a few months now but decided to sign up thanks to this thread.

Well now. I don't think Vordy's actually sued anyone at all. Unlike him, you see, I am a TRUE AND HONEST lawyer in England and Wales (apologies for the powerlevelling). Here's why he's just making stuff up:

Firstly, when you issue a Claim Form, and actually pay the fee for issuing it, you get copies of the form back with the Court seal, which is conspicuously missing from Vordy's papers.

Secondly, as it's in the High Court, it would be endorsed with the name of the Master (a procedural judge, basically) who will be handling the matter. Once again, this is missing.

Thirdly, as he wants an injunction, there has to be a hearing, and normally either the Court would handwrite the date and time of the hearing on the form once he's got it back from the Court, or would send him a further Court order setting that hearing date.

Basically, he's just gone onto the Ministry of Justice website, downloaded a PDF claim form, filled it out, and posted it.

TL;DR - He's never filed any lolsuit in his entire life and, as usual, doesn't know what he's on about. He's no lawyer. He's a fucking idiot. Also, his head is a really amusing shape.
Click to expand...

Wondered why I could never find the reference number anywhere on the High Court website considering they're all listed there with their reference numbers, I had suspected as much for a while, but it's nice to get it confirmed.

As you can see on the whole stuff we have here, he's a McKenzie Friend. So he knows a little bit about the law and has done some things here and there but his grasp on most subjects have always seemed highly tenuous.

Of course his losses are more fun to read about.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja and Army Burger
Ponderous Pillock said:
Wondered why I could never find the reference number anywhere on the High Court website considering they're all listed there with their reference numbers, I had suspected as much for a while, but it's nice to get it confirmed.

As you can see on the whole stuff we have here, he's a McKenzie Friend. So he knows a little bit about the law and has done some things here and there but his grasp on most subjects have always seemed highly tenuous.

Of course his losses are more fun to read about.
Click to expand...

You don't need any qualification whatever to be a paid McKenzie friend though. In fact, a lot of them are basically Billy Big Bollocks types and borderline scam artists who prey on the desperate and the credulous and if/when (most likely when) they stuff it up, because they aren't required to have professional indemnity insurance, you've no recourse.

Here follows the edifying tale of one Nigel Baggaley Quinlan, who could well have qualified for lolcow status himself. Note the chimping out in the comments section.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ex...lling-lawyer-a-lying-slag/5049010.fullarticle
 
  • Informative
Reactions: snoot booper, seagull, Trombonista and 9 others
Null said:
That's actually really smart. Is this sort of recourse an option? @Ginger Piglet @Ponderous Pillock
Click to expand...

Hmmm. If he does try to become qualified, which we'll probably know about because he'll no doubt brag about it to all and sundry, for a start it's at least 2 years in the future since he is still on his Legal Practice Course by the sounds of it. There's still a training contract or pupillage left to go - and any employer or barristers' chambers who googles him will no doubt see all the drama he's been involved in over the years and think twice about hiring him.

But I'm sure that if that does happen, a timely letter or e-mail to the Solicitors Regulation Authority / Bar Standards Board containing evidence of his trying to intimidate people by misrepresenting prospective Court pleadings as actual pleadings in an actual, issued case might go to whether he's a fit and proper person to be a solicitor / barrister. Can't guarantee it'll derail him definitively though.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Anne Other, Ambivalenz, AN/ALR56 and 5 others
Ginger Piglet said:
Hmmm. If he does try to become qualified, which we'll probably know about because he'll no doubt brag about it to all and sundry, for a start it's at least 2 years in the future since he is still on his Legal Practice Course by the sounds of it. There's still a training contract or pupillage left to go - and any employer or barristers' chambers who googles him will no doubt see all the drama he's been involved in over the years and think twice about hiring him.

But I'm sure that if that does happen, a timely letter or e-mail to the Solicitors Regulation Authority / Bar Standards Board containing evidence of his trying to intimidate people by misrepresenting prospective Court pleadings as actual pleadings in an actual, issued case might go to whether he's a fit and proper person to be a solicitor / barrister. Can't guarantee it'll derail him definitively though.
Click to expand...

Would using forged court documents be enough to avoid the exception for threats of legal action and legally qualify as menaces under Article 21 of the Theft Act 1968?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: ActualKiwi
Null said:
That's actually really smart. Is this sort of recourse an option? @Ginger Piglet @Ponderous Pillock
Click to expand...

Ginger Piglet said:
Hmmm. If he does try to become qualified, which we'll probably know about because he'll no doubt brag about it to all and sundry, for a start it's at least 2 years in the future since he is still on his Legal Practice Course by the sounds of it. There's still a training contract or pupillage left to go - and any employer or barristers' chambers who googles him will no doubt see all the drama he's been involved in over the years and think twice about hiring him.

But I'm sure that if that does happen, a timely letter or e-mail to the Solicitors Regulation Authority / Bar Standards Board containing evidence of his trying to intimidate people by misrepresenting prospective Court pleadings as actual pleadings in an actual, issued case might go to whether he's a fit and proper person to be a solicitor / barrister. Can't guarantee it'll derail him definitively though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the above. He's passing... some form of exam but it seems to be Open University/Night Courses to go with whatever it is he actually does in his day to day job.

I'd probably recommend the SRA directly as it is more consumer based and what he did do was basically fraudulently claim he had filed a court case when it's now clear he hasn't as an intimidation effort.

With this revelation he probably does fall more under intimidation actions under the laws we've discussed here previously, especially with his email correspondence to @Dynastia where he continued to weild the lawsuit as a threat. However, I will defer to m'learned friend @Ginger Piglet on that.

As for the bragging, he was on about his high pass rate for the ethical side but the other elements he passed with were very average.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Anne Other, ActualKiwi, Dynamite Ninja and 3 others
Ponderous Pillock said:
As for the bragging, he was on about his high pass rate for the ethical side but the other elements he passed with were very average.
Click to expand...

Legal Practice Course doesn't get you a free ride to qualification. Got to get a training contract first, and those are like gold dust right now. It took me over a year from the end of my LPC to getting a training contract and I was applying quite a few years before that too. I doubt very much that Vordy has what it takes to get one.

Either way, I think it certainly goes to whether he's a fit and proper person, given:

1. his claiming to have issued a claim when he hadn't to try and browbeat @Dynastia into submission;
2. his constant spraying accusations of paedophilia at anyone and everyone he doesn't like;
3. his online harassment of people who he thinks have done him wrong;
4. the Evanescence Incident;
5. that incident with the Lib Dem councillor;
6. other dramas passim ad nauseam.

Frankly, I wouldn't want such a person representing me if I were in hot water about something.

With regard to the actual lolsuit threat, here is the SRA Handbook and the principles solicitors are supposed to espouse. I don't think he's complied with them, do you? He's certainly not acted with integrity or upheld the rule of law.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Anne Other, ActualKiwi and The Littlest Shitlord
Ginger Piglet said:
Legal Practice Course doesn't get you a free ride to qualification. Got to get a training contract first, and those are like gold dust right now. It took me over a year from the end of my LPC to getting a training contract and I was applying quite a few years before that too. I doubt very much that Vordy has what it takes to get one.

Either way, I think it certainly goes to whether he's a fit and proper person, given:

1. his claiming to have issued a claim when he hadn't to try and browbeat @Dynastia into submission;
2. his constant spraying accusations of paedophilia at anyone and everyone he doesn't like;
3. his online harassment of people who he thinks have done him wrong;
4. the Evanescence Incident;
5. that incident with the Lib Dem councillor;
6. other dramas passim ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

As Jack Thompson's case showed, and as other insane lawyers with careers of kookery show, actually losing a law license takes a lot of work. However, if you have all this before you even apply for a license, you just wouldn't get one in the United States.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, DadaistVizor, Trombonista and 8 others
AnOminous said:
As Jack Thompson's case showed, and as other insane lawyers with careers of kookery show, actually losing a law license takes a lot of work. However, if you have all this before you even apply for a license, you just wouldn't get one in the United States.
Click to expand...
What disqualifies someone from practicing law in the US?
 
AnOminous said:
Not having a license to practice law, which involves a state bar association not giving you a license, or taking it away when you have it, appealable to the state supreme court.
Click to expand...
.. Ya, duh. What would disqualify someone from receiving a license?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back