Tuesday, 23 October 2018

When it comes to Foul Mouthed Abuse, noone can outdo Zionist Lawyers like Mark Lewis

When you think of members of the legal profession you think of the scales of justice and the statue of liberty. Justice blind to all special interests, political causes and favours. Lawyers are generally thought of as people who carefully weigh the pros and cons of an issue, always willing to see the others’ viewpoint. They are officially Officers of the Court and their first duty is to see justice is done. But when it comes to Zionist lawyers then you can throw all of that out of the window.
Support for the Jewish supremacism and the State of Israel is their first priority. They are not the first nor the last to put the interests of the State before the interests of justice. You only need to recall John Yoo and Jay Bybee two White House lawyers who produced legal opinions to justify torture. As the New York Times put it, they ‘were not acting as fair-minded analysts of the law but as facilitators of a scheme to evade it. The White House decision to brutalize detainees already had been made. Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee provided legal cover.’
Strange as it may see, NW Friends of Israel, which has previously worked with Tommy Robinson's EDL, had nothing to say about this meeting.  Perhaps not surprising since many of their members were in attendance
The same is true of the Zionist lawyers below. Support for Israel, right or wrong, is their only concern.  Land confiscation, virulent state racism, apartheid laws are all explained away by Jewish exceptionalism. Their legal training is but a weapon to be employed against supporters of the Palestinians. Shouting ‘anti-Semitism’ at every opportunity gives these lawyers the ideal pretext to engage in wholesale abuse.

Mark Lewis

Speaking of bigots, none come more obnoxious than Mark Lewis, who made a name for himself in the hacking cases against the News of the World. Lewis is an ardent supporter of Herut UK, the British branch of Likud.  It is an organisation that is steeped in racism. Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Prime Minister, is famous for going on Facebook at the last election to warn Jewish voters that ‘droves’ of Arabs have gone to the polls. Likud has presided over a dramatic increase in Israeli state racism, most recently sealed with the Jewish Nation State Law.
Lewis, who spoke at the relaunch meeting of Herut UK, is of the opinion that whatever the Israeli government does should be supported by British Jews and opposition to Zionism and Israel is automatically anti-Semitic. He therefore defends without reservation the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the theft of Palestinian land, the Jewish only roads etc. Indeed he will shortly become a settler himself and no doubt will excuse attacks on Palestinians, burning of crops, polluting water sources, demolition of houses by the need to fight ‘anti-Semitism’.
Like Berlow, Lewis is nothing if not abusive.  So much so that he has got himself hauled up before the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority on charges of abusing people on social media.  His excuse is that they are all neo-Nazis but that is but a pretext.
Lewis is a partner of Mandy Blumenthall, the representative of Herut UK. In August 2018, Lewis and Blumenthal told the Victoria Derbyshire programme that they are quitting the UK as they no longer feel safe because of anti-Semitismand they will move to Israel in December where they can practice their racism without being called to account. Blumenthal naturally lays the blame at the door of Jeremy Corbyn. Derbyshire, alone amongst BBC journalists gave them a good grilling and showed how vacuous are their claims.
On 9 August 2014 when Israel was bombing Gaza, Mark Lewis railed on Twitter against anti-zionists, calling them anti-Jewish racist scum. It started at 2:33pm with Mark's tweet:
Ruthless approach to antisemitism
The Times of Israel reported that “Lewis takes a ruthless approach, believing that it’s necessary to be aggressive against anti-Semites on social media.”
“Someone can be a Nazi, but at least [if they are taken to court] they can be a homeless Nazi,” he says. “I’m quite happy to take their homes off them. If these people would have rational debate, I would do that [instead], but they are nutters who have conspiratorial theories and I will never change their outlook.".

In September 2017, it was reported that Jake Wallis Simons, associate editor of the Daily Mail Online, was suing Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, for £40,000 in damages plus £100,000 legal costs for lawyer Mark Lewis, who was representing Simons in a High Court case commencing on 7 November 2017.
Craig Murray wrote that This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.”
Craig Murray reacted:
"I sincerely hope [Mark Lewis] does not consider me a Nazi, though plainly this case is started by my falsely being smeared as an anti-Semite. But no matter how objectionable somebody may find my views on Israel/Palestine, how does it serve justice that “at least my” wife and 8-year-old son “can be homeless.” That is however precisely what Mr Lewis seeks to achieve and to be plain, he has threatened me in person with bankruptcy

High-profile solicitor facing tribunal over online spats with “neo-Nazis”

Law Gazette, 28.9.18.
Mr Lewis has been outspoken in his support of Israel. A former director of UK Lawyers for Israel, in June he halted the pro-Palestinian Al Quds rally in central London for an hour by refusing to move his wheelchair.
He said at the time that he did so to protest against Hezbollah flags and “inflammatory rhetoric”....
The newspaper also said that Mr Lewis took a “ruthless approach, believing that it’s necessary to be aggressive against anti-Semites on social media”.
Mr Lewis told Legal Futures that he could not comment on the case beyond saying that he would “fully defend” himself and that “it will be a very interesting battle”.
There have been an increasing number of disciplinary cases involving social media posts, made more acute where the solicitor identifies as such. Last year, the SRA issued a warning notice to solicitors on how to conduct themselves on social media. Media lawyer Mark Lewis to face SDT over social media comments
High profile media lawyer Mark Lewis – who came to public attention with his work on the phone-hacking cases – is to face a disciplinary tribunal over alleged comments on social media.
Mark Lewis
It emerged today that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has decided to prosecute Lewis, a partner at London firm Seddons.
The allegations are that in May 2017 he used his Facebook account to post ‘offensive and profane communications’ towards a third party.
The SRA also alleges that between July 2015 and December 2016 he used his Twitter account, which publicly identified him as a solicitor, to post offensive and profane communications.
None comes nastier than Robert Festenstein, a bankruptcy solicitor.  He is essentially a fascist. So it was no surprise when he played the part of a solicitor in a video with none other than Tommy Robinson.  Festenstein is a founder of Jewish Human Rights Watch, an organisation that is dedicated to opposing human rights for Palestinians and anti-Zionists.
In May 2017 Festenstein wrote to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London attempting to close down the Palestine Expo 2017 Festival on the grounds it was a ‘Jewish hate festival’ despite it having numerous Jewish speakers like Ilan Pappe or Miko Peled. One thing JHRW shares with groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is a hatred for free speech and debate, the hall mark of fascism. 
The letter from Festenstein was one long lie.  It began with a lie: ‘We act for Jewish Human Rights Watch – JHRW.”
It would be more truthful to have said ‘I am Jewish Human Rights Watch – JHRW.” There are number of companies under the name JHRW or similar.
There is JHRW Education in which Festenstein is the sole director.
There is Jewish Rights Watch in which Festenstein is one of 3 directors.
In short Festenstein deliberately disguised his own connections to JHRW in order to make his letter seem more plausible. It would be interesting to see who paid him for the letter and how much!
A letter of total deception - Fenstenstein writes on behalf of a client who just happens to be himself
The next lie was to write that ‘’Whilst our client has no difficulty with legitimate protest, it is most concerned that you are allowing a group with terrorist links to operate an event on your premises.’ Yet more lies.  Like most Zionist activists Festenstein has the greatest difficulty with any protest to do with Palestine and the suggestion that there was any link with ‘terrorists’ is risible.  Given Festenstein’s links with the far-Right and Tommy Robinson he should perhaps have been looking nearer to home.
Recently members of JHRW attacked a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting in Manchester and are suspected of being involved in an attack on a Jewish Voice for Labour meeting at Labour Party conference in Liverpool.
Festenstein is also suspected of being involved in a meeting between Tommy Robinson and a dozen members of the Manchester Jewish community.
Festenstein isn't your run of the mill solicitor. He was fined £20,000 by the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal in November 10th for a series of breaches of the rules governing solicitors. They are detailed below. He was charged with a second solicitor whom he had employed, Bryan Slater.  Slater was struck off the rolls. In short Festenstein is a solicitor whom most people would give a wide berth to.

Jonathan Goldberg QC
The other Zionist lawyer I have become acquainted with is more of a clown than a villain like Lewis and Festenstein.  I refer to Jonathan Goldberg QC, who is a patron of the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. In an email exchange with a friend of mine he asked:
hear your friend Greenstein got his just deserts.
What was the problem with his family ? Was he an abused child ?
The ‘logic’ of this statement being that Jewish opponents of Zionism must have suffered ‘child abuse’.  Apart from anything else it trivialises the very real problem of child abuse.
I asked the learned QC what kind of idiot attributes political differences to child abuse. Because Zionists cannot perceive why anyone might oppose the ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies that Israel follows, critics are seen as suffering from psychological trauma of one kind or another. Goldberg responded that he was aware my father was a rabbi but that
where sons strive so desperately to dishonour their parents and negate everything they stood for publicly, as you have done so prominently, it often stems from a history of abuse, whether verbal, physical or worst of all  sexual.’
Whatever his talents, Goldberg’s expertise clearly doesn’t extend to the medical or psychological field. Even the most brilliant of Zionists, and there is no doubt that Goldberg is a very capable if not brilliant lawyer, unlike Lewis and Festenstein who are merely functionaries, Goldberg is nonetheless completely incapable of understanding why many Jews reject Zionism.
The attribution of political disagreement to  the realm of psychiatric causes was characteristic of Stalinism which incarcerated many dissidents in mental asylums.  Goldberg, for all his talents, is incapable of understand that it isn’t rejection of one’s parents but a rejection of Zionism and what it does to the Palestinians that more and more Jews find unappealing. 
Goldberg is probably a good example of how people can be brilliant in a narrow area like law but narrow minded bigots in all other areas. Despite an inauspicious start we continued our conversation and it became a little less heated. Indeed Jonathan despite continually promising that he would terminate the correspondence clearly couldn’t resist the temptation to engage with me!  A copy of the correspondence is below and the affair was the subject of a blog post. The Wit and Wisdom of Jonathan Goldberg QC
Goldberg is probably best remembered for his caustic comments on the failed litigation in Fraser –v- University College Union where it was alleged that the union’s Boycott of Israel policy discriminated against Jewish members of UCU. The Tribunal comprehensively rejected the case brought by Fraser ruling that the case ‘represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.’  Fraser was represented by Anthony Julius of Mischcon de Reya, the solicitors for the Princess Diana Fund who nearly bankrupted it with his hubris and fees!  Goldberg described the bringing of the case as ‘an act of epic folly by all concerned.... You only bring such showcase litigation if you are certain to win.”
Anthony Julius, who had brought the case, demonstrated a staggering degree of incompetence. For example all the claims were outside the time limits which are 3 months, at an Employment Tribunal. It is clear to all but Julius that Zionism is not a protected characteristic (thus meriting the protection of the Equalities Act 2010). Julius isn’t an employment solicitor and he was clearly out of his depths. Julius seems to have taken this criticism to heart.  Previously a flamboyant character he has gone to grass. Nothing has been heard of him since. 
Matthew Berlow
Below is the story of how criminal lawyer and Glasgow Friends of Israel activist Matthew Berlow fell foul of the Scottish Law Society because of his foul mouthed racist rantings. Berlow smeared and abused a Palestinian activist.  Justice however caught up with him as he has now been fined £1,750 by the Scottish Law Society in addition to being instructed to attend Diversity Training.  It is this latter punishment that Berlow resents more than anything else since he considers being Jewish grants him immunity from being a common and garden bigot. A report of this case is in the Herald on Sunday is entitled Diversity training for Jewish lawyer who called pro-Palestinian campaigners 'scummy racists'.
The Case of Matthew Berlow and Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Matthew Berlow is a member of Glasgow Friends of Israel, a far-Right racist group that uses Nazi style language when talking about 'euthanising' i.e. murdering Palestinians - 
Berlow described Dr Karolin Hijazi as a “thin-skinned…wannabe social justice warrior and a “snowflake”, a term popular with US White supremacists and the extreme right generally to attack those who stand up to them. A defender of the Israeli army, a force charged with war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, Berlow has agreed to pay the Law Society of Scotland a £1,750 fine for his behaviour but is upset that he has been mandated to undergo “diversity training”.
In 2016, the Aberdeen Branch of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) protested an Israeli Dead Sea cosmetics company which profited from the Israeli occupation and apartheid structures. Berlow, a staunch defender of a state that is openly racist, attacked demonstrators as “scummy racists”, claiming bizarrely that the Israeli company was merely an outlet for hatred of Jews, a "soft Jewish target to aim your bile at”. Protests across Scotland fuelled by Israel's massacres of thousands of Palestinians led to the Israeli company closing down and leaving the UK.
Dr Hijazi later reported Berlow to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which found “potential conduct issues". The Law Society of Scotland investigated and received Berlow's defence that his comments were not directed at "snowflake" Dr Hijazi but at the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Karolin Hijazi is a long-term, committed Palestinian campaigner. She was jailed by Israel in 2012 when a group of Scots joined the Welcome to Palestine effort to reach Bethlehem to help build a school. She refused food during detention with many of the others and was deported along with other British and Scots activists.
The Law Society of Scotland concluded that Berlow had used “derogatory language...damaging to the reputation of both the profession as a whole and of the individual solicitor concerned”. It would seem Berlow couldn't stop digging, for the Law Society judged his written defence of his original actions to be “derogatory and aggressive".
He was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and ordered to pay Dr Hijazi £100 compensation on top of the £1,750 fine.
Berlow will appeal the diversity training order on the basis of a 2017 attack on Scottish BDS campaigners by a minor pro-Israel blogger, David Collier, acting on behalf of the Israeli Embassy. The report claims SPSC is an anti-semitic organisation that denies the Holocaust.
Dr Hijazi said she found Berlow’s comments “particularly disturbing, having campaigned against racism, discrimination and bigotry all my life”. SPSC stands foursquare for Palestinian rights and opposes anti-semitism and vile Holocaust denial, which we consider no less repulsive than Berlow's denying that the Palestinian people suffered a brutal ethnic cleansing by Zionist militias in 1948 and subsequently.
In any event it is advisable to be sceptical about any utterance from Berlow and his comrades at Glasgow Friends of Israel; the Friends of Israeli Snipers openly use the dehumanising language of "euthanising" Palestinians.
Even after Berlow appeared as a prosecution witness in Glasgow Sheriff Court in a failed three-year effort by Scottish prosecutors and pro-Israel lobbyists to secure convictions for racism, i.e. antisemitism, against myself and Jim Watson, he and I maintained an email exchange. (I like the adage, "Hate the sin but not the sinner".)
During our exchanges, I pointed out what he knew, that his Friends of Israel were still lying about the verdict of the recent trial.
Matthew Berlow replied: "I will post the truth about the verdict AND I will make it clear that you are not anti Semitic and cannot be responsible for those that may attach themselves to your cause but that you try and root it out to the best of your ability...". In a separate email, dated 1 August 2017, Mathew acknowledged that "There is no doubt that you are not anti Semitic as you eloquently refute that at every opportunity..."
Normally, SPSC and other campaiging groups have to accept the most grotesque inventions from pro-Israeli groups since their deep pockets and our modest means make a defamation trial very difficult. The successful challenge by Dr Hijazi to unfounded attacks and smears, of which there have been many demented examples, should inspire those maligned in this way to fight back.
Mick Napier
West Calder
21 October 2018

No comments:

Post a comment

Please submit your comments below