Here on this blog, much justified attention has been assigned to the “Speculative Invoice” participants. Although these rogue characters (Which we all know!) justify their acknowledgement here, they owe their unsuccessful efforts to their “legitimate” seal of approval by an “Expert Witness”. This “Expert Witness” has effectively swayed every Judge in the High Court to grant every Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) that has appeared before them.
So who is this “Expert Witness”????? Step forward Mr Clement Charles Vogler.
Clem Vogler has in the past provided “Expert Witness” reports for Law Firms practising what is commonly known as “Speculative Invoicing”, what has been declared in the House of Lords as “Legal Blackmail”. The Law firms, Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW are listed on his website, but now so are Golden Eye International (GEIL). GEIL however are NOT a law firm, they were however represented by one of the Law Firms that practiced “Speculative Invoicing”.
Vogler gives the “ok” to the monitoring software that is used to identify the IP addresses of alleged copyright Infringers. The problem is the software has never been scrutinised by a Court of Law and its inner workings are not public knowledge.
In this post we will look at Clem Vogler in more detail. He is after all the man who puts the seal of approval on the software that has identified tens of thousands of alleged infringers. Of course the fact that all the Law Firms involved have had their fingers burnt with heavy fines or Solicitors being suspended (one Law Practice actually went bankrupt and its head was suspended for TWO years), has not stopped Mr Vogler from continuing doing what he does.
Clement Charles Vogler could be regarded as a Walter Mitty character. The self-declared computer expert, expert witness, Chartered Physicist, Technical Partner in Ad Litem, Database writer, Runner, Local Councillor……the list goes on.
For reference, see http://www.adlitem.co.uk
So what can be said about him that’s true?
Well NOT that he is a Computer Expert!
A Computer Expert: (The following statements link to the individual posts)
“The messaging interface has returned an unknown error” It says, helpfully.It leaves emails still sitting in the Inbox that I want to consign to the delete box. Oddly enough, if I go to another folder and delete something there, it will sometimes work – and then even allow me to delete a message or two from the Inbox before reverting to the error message. I’ve removed Outlook and re-installed it, with no improvement. No idea why this problem has arisen – it was fine till yesterday and I’ve not altered anything in the meantime. Any ideas?
I used to print single address labels on my Epson LX300 dot matrix – using MS Word (envelopes and labels). That was with W95 and W98 Now I have XP, it doesn’t work. Instead of printing one label and advancing obediently to the top of the next, it puts in a form feed and runs through six or seven rows of blank labels. I assume this has something to do with XP not being DOS based. I don’t mind buying a new printer, if I could find one that behaved itself under XP and Word. Anyone else grappled with this problem?
I can’t really see the computer expert in the above. Of course he could have become a computer expert in recent years but he says on his website that he published articles on technical aspects of computing in magazines between 1990 and 1996 (Maybe he took a break from being a computer expert for a little while!). To not be able to prevent a PC connecting to his own host PC seems laughable, for a man of his supposed qualifications.
Now let’s look at what we do know………..
From his own website:
I am listed (under ad Litem) as a checked expert on computer systems in the Expert Witness Directory (formerly, the Law Society Directory of Expert Witnesses). This register operates vetting procedures to ensure that persons registered are suitably qualified and experienced
So where is Clem or Ad Litem when you do a search here:
Still declaring yourself as a certified expert witness on your website whilst you’re not listed on the legal hub website is wrong.
Email from Adam Glen to Andrew Crossley dated 20/08/2010 15:29:
Whilst I have been unable to establish or find a standard for the protection of evidence in civil cases I am concerned that I have not seen any statement from an expert witness that the evidence cannot be altered or modified in any manner.
Clem Vogler was the “Expert Witness” for Davenport Lyons AND ACS:Law, and it must be that his test on the software was clearly inadequate.
Adam Glen didn’t seem to like Clem Vogler really, including getting his surname wrong with this email to Andrew Crossley dated 24/08/2010 09:15:
You know my view on the quality of Clem Vogeler’s expert witness statement and what I perceive as the opportunity it provides to serious challenge.
This all points to some major concerns by Adam Glen that Clem Vogler is not a good “Expert Wiitness”.
From the GEIL Court case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html
Both Mr Vogler and Mr Torabi have qualifications in information technology, and both give evidence about the operation of software used to monitor P2P filesharing, which is clearly a field requiring technical expertise.
Remember the above statement, it will be important later!
Mr Vogler explains he did not have Xtrack installed on his computer, and did not concern himself with how it worked, but treated it as a “black box”. He simply presented it with inputs, namely his test files, and examined the outputs to see if they corresponded to his inputs. He was satisfied that they did correspond.
What on earth does that statement say about how you perform your duty as an expert witness? You do not install the software. You do not concern yourself with how it works. Could that be considered enough of a test to show that a true test has been done to verify that the software does what it should do?
Now for a real look at real evidence that Clem Vogler is no “expert witness”. The following paragraphs and snippets are taken from a Google-translated German website that relates to Clem Vogler providing an expert witness statement for Guardaley GmbH (Yep the very people that ACS:LAWs Terence Tsang was setting up to replace…Ali Torabi) (The translation is not perfect, but is easily understood):
In essence, Mr. Clement Charles Vogler has carried out only a few functional tests, and not even these independent, but always in very close cooperation of the client. The results of these tests, he arrives at conclusions that seemed logical to him, without him being an expert in the relevant field. Even these few test cases were carried out according to his statements with “very small files”, which of course is extremely unrealistic and not even close to a real-mode, the software will meet.
“Overall, his “investigations” totally unfit to occupy a general accuracy of the disputed software. They could, if they had been since conducted independently and correctly, the correct functioning of the software THAN find in this particular case tests. Since these test cases, however, does not approach the real conditions comply, they were not conducted independently and not with the necessary expertise, even this statement is not tenable.”
To paraphrase a quote attributed to Clem Vogler by a Judge, I like the way this article put it!
We have found ONE directory that lists Vogler as an “Expert Witness”, however it is for “Construction Issues”, specifically, “Electrical and electronic engineering” Hmmmm,
Mr Vogler is a diverse character, although we have found no evidence of him being a “Sweet and Maxwell” certified “Expert Witness” as he claims, he most certainly is a long distance runner, he seems to also specialise in books with regard to “Fine Printing, Intaglio And Relief Engraving, Non-Photographic Illustration, Private Press” in the guise of an online bookshop, through newsgroups and even contributing to the merits of nuclear risks of contaminating sea water, with sodium coolant (Not kidding) and vivisection…. As well as reviewing Microphones! Phew!
A Chartered Physicist:
Your interesting news story about the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear site in Scotland (May pp12–13) noted that the liquid-sodium coolant was, (unsurprisingly), highly radioactive. But you go on to say that the metal is treated so that it can be safely disposed of into the sea as salt water. I am puzzled by this. Either the half-lives of the various isotopes present are short enough to ensure decay to safe levels before release, or they are not. In the former case, why dispose of a valuable metal for which there are various industrial uses? If the latter, then disposal as sea water will cause radiological contamination.
The liquid sodium–potassium (NaK) metal alloy from the reactor goes through a separation process that leaves us with some lightly contaminated liquid that can be discharged to sea, while the “filters” that have extracted much of the radioactivity are stored as radioactive waste. In technical terms, the NaK is reacted with water in a nitrogen atmosphere to produce a solution of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. This liquor also contains enormous levels of radioactive fission products, dominated by caesium-137 (many other fission products have now decayed away since the reactor has been shut down since 1977). The caustic solution is neutralized with nitric acid and passed through two custom-built ion-exchange columns to remove the radioactivity. The liquor is then discharged to sea as sodium nitride and potassium nitrate in water, while the ion-exchange columns concentrate the radioactivity for ultimate storage as intermediate-level solid waste. Radioactively contaminated NaK has no commercial value and the contamination cannot be readily removed until the material is in an aqueous phase.
Colin Punler, Dounreay Communications
Now I am no Chartered Physicist, but Clem questioned their story and the reply was enough for me to think that it was a silly question to ask!
Technical Partner at Ad Litem:
Technically speaking, you can’t be Technical Partner of a dissolved company.
(See A Computer Expert above)
We also had John Richardson in the V55 class placed 6th 25:37, in V60 an excellent run by Clem Vogler to finish 3rd in class 21:00, Tony Bastard 7th 23:28 and Ernie Bradshaw 8th 24:33
It would be difficult to verify all consultancies that are listed simply because of the number of years that have passed. But finding any that can be verified is all too difficult!
GQS Solicitors (Birmingham) Dec 2006 Vehicle Fraud
Google “GQS Solicitors” “Vehicle Fraud” and you get one website, adlitem.co.uk. Not one website anywhere that suggest that GQS has ever been involved in a vehicle fraud case.
David Phillips Solicitors (Manchester) Jun 2005 Immigration Fraud
Google “David Phillips Solicitors” “Immigration Fraud” and you get one relevant website, adlitem.co.uk. Not one website anywhere that suggest that DPS has ever been involved in an immigration fraud case.
Rigby & Co Solicitors (Middlewich) Sept 2007 Software
Now what that means I don’t know and is meaningless to try and find anything about that case!
All of the above is questionable until evidence can back it up.
This rounds up what we know so far, It will be updated whenever it can be.
UPDATE 1: Clem Vogler requested that the image of himself taken from a WordPress.com Blog should be removed from this one using a DMCA takedown. we did not fight the decision, on the grounds that we believe his request has visually improved this particular post, and we thank him!