1 Coniston Rise
CF44 0HN

24th November 2003

Mr Ian Edwards
Regional Chairman
C/o Employment Tribunals Service
Dukes Keep
Marsh Lane

Re.: Kear v. Neural Technologies Ltd

Mr Edwards

Further to previous communication, I am writing in connection with a hearing that is scheduled for tomorrow before Donald Cowling.

I have made very serious complaints about Mr Cowling’s behaviour and lack of professional standards yet you refuse to provide me with a fresh and unbiased Tribunal panel.

I have attended your court at Southampton on three separate occasions, meeting three separate Chairmen. I have documentary evidence to prove that each is wilfully guilty of corruption in public office, of forgery, of aiding and abetting perjury and of pervertingthe course of justice for approaching four years. Mr Cowling is the most recent and possibly the most blatant example of these and yet he has again been presented as the Chairman.

For reasons yet to be fully explained, your court protects a company, Neural Technologies, which can be proven to be criminally fraudulent though ironically claims to specialize in fraud detection. I now have considered and reasonable suspicion that the company is a money-laundering front. I have recently spoken to another former employee of Neural Technologies who was recruited as a specialist but who highlighted the flaws in the technical methodologies of the company; a specifically recruited phd graduate who was, as a result of his professional concern, dismissed on a fabricated and ignominious charge. It would appear that I am not alone.

In light of the fact that you deny my Human Right to a fair trial I shall not attend the hearing tomorrow. I view dealings with your court a source of distress, a waste of my time and a colossal waste of tax-payers money, funding such incompetence and corruption.

You will of course have noted that your court has disallowed one claim to proceed, which the Transcript from the Employment Appeal Tribunal allows. The Order however differs in material matters. This is further evidence of incompetence and corruption on behalf of the employment court service.

You might be interested to hear that at the most recent Appeal hearing in London, the Respondent’s solicitor, Philip Douglas Broom of Blake Lapthorn Linnell, cut a sorry figure and was laughed out of court. The two panel members could not contain their mirth and openly derided him. At one point Mr Broom reacted in what might be described as a ‘fit of pique’ and shouted at the panel, “I demand respect”. I pointed out to the panel that respect is usually earned and not demanded, that a solicitor of some years could not win a case against an un-represented individual without fabricating evidence and consistently misleading a court, then continuing to lose. They laughed at him again. I spoke to one of the Panel Members after the case and she offered congratulations for the way I argued the case.

Judge D M Levy however recorded a convoluted and conflicting judgement between the Order and the Transcript which took 3 months to publish, giving your court the opportunity to pick and chose which Order to pursue.

The barrister Charles Spencer Taylor had also previously embarrassed himself before the Employment Appeal Tribunal when it was proven he was knowingly presenting false evidence. This was also covered up.

You should note that Neural Technologies, Blake Lapthorn Linnell and the courts continue to run a serious reputational risk.

I will admit one weakness in that whilst I knew the administrators of law in this country were corrupt, I had no idea of the depths that some would sink to and the shabby and shameless manners some would adopt along the way.

It disgusts me.

I shall pursue this matter with the relevant authorities.

In the mean time please consider me as a whistleblower. The facts of this case are definitely in the public interest and I have fully publicized my founded allegations against the corrupt legal service which you administer, under the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

John Kear