Apparently, unlike some, the law society is able to read legal judgments and understand phrases like:
- “Ms Sperling’s assumption of the role of victim in this matter in my view cannot be justified. “
- “Lie No 4 was posted on 10 May 2012 all of which seems to point to an obsession that Ms Sperling has with Ms Brown rather than Ms Brown having an obsession with Ms Sperling as she stated in the comment “please leave me alone”. In fact it is Ms Brown who appears to have been the subject of continued attention from Ms Sperling.”
- “Ms Sperling’s assertions that she did not intend to harass cannot be substantiated given the combative and aggressively critical tone of her blogs and given her awareness of the fact that Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan knew of the existence of the posts. That she continued to make further posts and indeed the number of posts increased in intensity once litigation had commenced is a further indication of my conclusion.”
- “At the same time I would counsel Ms Sperling to now leave Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan alone.”
Anyway, I’ve blogged about her post on Simon’s complaint – you can read that here. As I noted, she seemed in her complaint to be (among other things) seriously suggesting that it was unethical for a lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit. It must have also been a shocker to have point 5 dismissed…
Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.
It was very clear from her posts that she had no real grounds to complain. Indeed, in the above linked post I concluded:
In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.
And that’s apparently how the law society saw it. I’m told that the word “vexatious” was used to describe the complaint, and it was further described as a continuation of Sperlings campaign of abuse and harassment.
What a pity they can’t act on malicious complaints.
But speaking of which, I’ve hinted previously that Sperling’s online bullying is larger than just a couple of victims. There are other matters she is has been called to account for. Not sure what I should/can say but suffice to say, if she is jailed, I’ll let my readers know if I’m able to.
I’d just like to talk about a couple of other things before I conclude.
Sperling previously tried to pretend that her place of study was a state secret, even though it could easily be discovered by anyone. At the time I posted on it, I thought I’d not name her institution of learning since she seemed to consider it private. However, it’s pretty hard to believe someone wants something private when they post it on facebook for the world to see.
So if you have a problem with Weltech giving a recidivist online bully privileged access to vulnerable people, give ’em a call and tell them (respectfully) that you find their ethical stance appalling. I certainly do.
But I will insert this warning. If you call WelTech you will be talking to someone who is not responsible for Sperling’s continued attendance at the school. Please be respectful to that person and stick to facts. We have all seen in recent days the results of people getting too worked up about someone appalling. It didn’t help in that situation and it certainly won’t help in this one.
Wonderful Now has been taken down for the moment. That’s a good thing. But she still presents a danger as she has never acknowledged her record of bullying, and has never said sorry to her victims.
One final thing.
I have no idea if the people at the Salvation Army Jackie attends see this. But if they do, I have this to say.
Please don’t give up on her.
This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here, and a brief overview of the history of this case here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.