Systemic Failures Index

Litigant-in-Person Record III

For Regulatory and Public Scrutiny

Page 1 Heading
Litigant-in-Person Record III – Page 1 of 3
Deflection by Date – When Complaint Timing Was Used to Bury Substance

Systemic Failures Index

Solicitor Misconduct Normalised

Safeguarding breaches reframed as service issues

Billing contradictions dismissed without scrutiny

Evidence and Disclosure Obstructed

Key documents withheld or distorted

WhatsApp timelines curated to mislead

Emotional Harm Silenced

Statements of truth stripped of trauma

Redactions pressured and misrepresented

Judicial Orders Breached

Sealed orders ignored

No enforcement or scrutiny

Safeguarding Referrals Obstructed

Court and regulatory processes used to block trauma disclosures

Right of Reply Denied

Firms responded, complainant excluded

No correction mechanism

Procedural Patterning

Responses templated before contact

Engagement structured to deflect

Judicial Review Illusion

940 applications; 891–919 dismissed

Success rates between 2.2% and 5.2%

Visibility Without Protection

Transcript requests triggered firm alerts

No restrictions, no safeguarding

Silence Used to Justify Closure

No questions asked

Closure built on non-engagement

Ombudsman Review Normalised Harm

Failures repeated across 11 categories

Misconduct, obstruction, trauma, redactions, safeguarding, and evidence contradictions all dismissed or reframed

Where the Lawless Legal System Buries the Vulnerable

With the majority of concerns still unresolved, this phase of the record begins with necessary catch-up—starting with the firms’ billing practices, financial opacity, and the continued misuse of Civil Procedure Rules to mask solicitor mismanagement. These failures are not isolated. They are enabled by regulatory bodies whose structures allow harm to persist unchallenged.

Whether acting as a Litigant in Person or as a formally represented client, I found myself in the same procedural swamp—one where solicitor misconduct was tolerated, regulatory oversight was absent, and procedural clarity was deliberately withheld. This record doesn’t just expose what happened. It documents how the system made it possible.

Representation Without Protection

When Solicitor Advice Created Reputational Risk

I was procedurally unrepresented for key stages of litigation, despite paying for solicitor support. The solicitor acting for me operated off record, selectively engaged with hearings, and misrepresented her timeline of instruction to the court. This left me exposed to procedural harm without institutional protection.

Even after she was forced by the opposing solicitor to go on record—or risk procedural collapse (email dated 21 October 2022 – 12:20)—I continued to carry the burden of the case. By then, her firm had merged and rebranded, but the advice remained inconsistent, reactive, and often incorrect.

Also noted in the 14 December 2022 invoice, she charged me for “mopping up” her own procedural missteps. But this wasn’t just administrative follow-up—it was reputational damage control for advice that placed her clients at risk. Her attempt to pressure me and my son into withdrawing truthful safeguarding statements wasn’t protective—it was coercive. 

Had we complied, the record would have shown us retracting confirmed facts, creating the appearance that we had lied. This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a solicitor throwing her clients under the bus to shield her own procedural failures.

If my son and I had agreed to remove the safeguarding paragraphs, the record would have shown that we, as claimants, amended our sworn statements of truth. That’s not a neutral act—it’s a procedural signal. And in litigation, especially where safeguarding and professional conduct are involved, such a retraction can be interpreted as:

• An admission that the original statements were inaccurate or misleading
• A concession under pressure, undermining the credibility of the original evidence
• A procedural vulnerability, suggesting the claimants were either mistaken or improperly advised

Even if framed as “clarification,” it would have been nothing of the sort. We would have overwritten truth with silence—and the record would have carried that silence forward.

What deeply concerns me is that the solicitor absolutely would have known this. She understands that:

• Statements of truth are sworn under CPR 22, and any amendment must be justified, transparent, and procedurally sound
• These proposed retractions—referred to by her as “Addendum Statements”—function as amendments under CPR, even though the term itself is not formally defined
• Retractions of safeguarding allegations, especially those confirmed by police, are not procedural tweaks—they’re reputational landmines

Her advice wasn’t protective. It was strategic deflection. And it risked placing her clients on record as having withdrawn factual safeguarding concerns—which could later be weaponised against us, especially if the case escalated or was reviewed by regulators.

This wasn’t a one-off. In May 2022, she misled the court by claiming she had only been instructed for the 16 May hearing, despite having been actively involved off record and fully aware of the case’s trajectory since March 2021. That pattern—of selective engagement, procedural deflection, and reputational risk—shows a solicitor willing to protect her own record at the expense of her clients’.

Truth as Threat

When Safeguarding Became Negotiable

It was never about protecting the record. It was about protecting reputations—at the expense of safeguarding truth.

The solicitor claimed that if my son and I didn’t retract our safeguarding allegations against the opposing solicitor, he would file a Statement in Reply, which could “possibly result in me and my son being unable to rely upon our witness evidence.” But that’s not how CPR works.

Under CPR Part 32, which governs witness evidence, a Statement in Reply is a procedural right—not a threat. The opposing party is entitled to respond to witness statements, but their reply does not invalidate our evidence. It may challenge it, contradict it, or attempt to discredit it—but it does not erase it.

So, her claim was not factually correct. It was a pressure tactic. And it was deeply misleading.

What was really happening?

• My son and I had submitted truthful safeguarding statements, backed by timestamped evidence and confirmed police involvement
• The opposing solicitor, facing reputational exposure, wanted those statements withdrawn
• The solicitor acting for us, instead of protecting her clients, proposed a workaround:

• • A set of revised statements to retract the allegations
  • A promise that if we complied, the opposing solicitor wouldn’t file a Statement in Reply
  • An implied threat that if we didn’t comply, our evidence might be disqualified

This wasn’t legal advice. It was strategic appeasement. And it placed the burden of reputational protection on me and my son—not on the solicitor who was paid to defend our truth.

Why does this matter?

Because we weren’t just being asked to retract. We were being told that telling the truth could cost us procedural standing. That’s not just unethical—it’s structurally dangerous. If we had complied:

• The record would show us withdrawing confirmed safeguarding concerns
• Future regulators or courts could interpret that as false testimony or procedural error
• My son’s credibility—and safety—could have been compromised

And the solicitor would have walked away with her record intact—while ours carried the stain of silence.

Yes, I was both a Litigant in Person and a formally represented client. That dual status matters. I was procedurally exposed even while paying for solicitor input. And the opposing solicitor’s own email confirms it: he knew she was running the case off record, and he tolerated it—until it threatened his own procedural standing.

But that integrity was already compromised. Her email of 21 October 2022 at 16:26 exposed the opposing solicitor’s own role in obstructing progress and inflating costs. It’s now on record that he had been turning a blind eye—not to protect fairness, but to preserve expediency—until the strategy backfired and revealed his own procedural contradictions.

His line —“I am turning a blind eye to that as an expediency”—is damning. It shows that both sides knew the solicitor was acting improperly but only intervened when it became inconvenient for him.

I wasn’t wrong. I was being pressured to rewrite truth as apology. And I stood firm. That refusal is now part of the record—and it’s one of the strongest forensic markers in Litigant Record III. 

CPR 17 – Misused as a Tool of Retraction

It’s only now, in 2025, that I fully recognise how dangerous the solicitor’s proposed retractions truly were. At the time, I understood the emotional pressure—but not the long-term procedural consequences. What was recommended wasn’t just a rewording—it was a reputational trap. And both solicitors were prepared to proceed without properly applying CPR 17.1(2), which states:

• Amendments to statements of case require written consent of all parties, or
• Permission of the court

The solicitor failed to make clear that her proposed retractions—labelled “Addendum Statements”—have no formal standing under the Civil Procedure Rules. Any amendment to a statement of truth must follow strict procedural requirements, including verification by a new statement of truth and timely filing in accordance with Practice Direction 17.

In her email dated 15 December 2022, she proposed that my son and I withdraw safeguarding allegations against the opposing solicitor using this format. She claimed it would prevent him from preparing a Statement in Reply—suggesting, misleadingly, that this could “possibly result in us being unable to rely upon our witness evidence.”

But this proposal wasn’t made in isolation. The 14 December 2022 invoice confirms that she had already written to the opposing firm on 12 December, suggesting a Statement of Retraction and amended Statements to avoid further time and cost. And the opposing solicitor agreed to this proposal before it was discussed with us—the paying clients.

It was a done deal—already agreed behind the scenes. What was presented to us on 15 December wasn’t a legal option. It was reputational damage control, disguised as advice.

This wasn’t legal advice—it was pressure. It reframed confirmed harassment as a procedural inconvenience. It placed the burden of protection on me, not the solicitor who was paid to provide it.

Although I was technically a client, I remained procedurally unrepresented for key stages of litigation. Earlier records refer to me as a Litigant in Person, which reflects the reality of being exposed, unsupported, and responsible for navigating the system without institutional protection—even while paying for solicitor input. This capsule clarifies that representation on record did not equate to meaningful advocacy or safeguarding.

Emotional Impact and Ongoing Discovery

Every time I revisit this case, I uncover another blow—another contradiction, another procedural failure. In January 2023, I could not have reasonably known the full extent of what had been done. I was still recovering, still trusting, still trying to make sense of a system designed to obscure.

The fact that I didn’t have a capsule titled Misuse of CPR 17 until now tells its own story. I wasn’t confused. I was denied clarity. And now, I’m documenting it.

If all the above had been known in January 2023, I would have included it in my Statement of Fact.

Missing Foundations

When Client Care Was Claimed but Never Evidenced

In his complaint response dated 26 March 2025, the senior partner of the firm stated that a Client Care Letter and Terms of Engagement were sent to me on 7 April 2021, when the file was opened. But there is no timestamped email, no attachment metadata, and no signed copy on record to support that claim. I’ve reviewed the full email trail from March and April 2021—including messages dated 25 March and 6 

April—and neither reference nor include the documents claimed.

At the time, I didn’t understand that these documents formed a binding contract. I wasn’t legally trained. I didn’t know that without a signed agreement, the solicitor’s authority and billing structure were procedurally exposed. That realisation only came in July 2025, after years of confusion, contradiction, and regulator deflection.

The duty to provide, explain, and confirm the contract wasn’t mine. It was the firm’s. And when I asked both the SRA and Legal Ombudsman to obtain a copy of the signed agreement, neither body acknowledged the request. That silence is now part of the record.

Even more concerning: the solicitor requested payment up front in her email dated 25 March 2021—before the alleged contract was sent. If the Client Care Letter and Terms were truly issued on 7 April, then the firm accepted money before confirming the terms of engagement. That’s not just sloppy—it’s procedurally unsound.

The senior partner did not confirm whether the documents were ever returned, signed, or acknowledged. And he did not attach a copy of the signed agreement to his response—despite attaching a 27 January 2023 letter to support his narrative. If the firm had a signed copy, why not include it? If they didn’t, why not say so?

This capsule doesn’t dispute the existence of a file. It documents the absence of contractual clarity—and the procedural exposure that followed.

Billing Without Boundaries

When Payment Was Used to Bypass Accountability

The senior partner asserts that “invoices were raised at intervals… and paid,” implying that payment equals agreement. But procedural legitimacy isn’t measured by whether money changed hands. It’s measured by whether the charges were lawful, transparent, and contractually supported.

The solicitor requested payment on 25 March 2021—before the firm claims the Client Care Letter and Terms of Engagement were sent on 7 April. That means money was accepted before any contract was confirmed. And if a signed agreement existed, why wasn’t it attached to the response?

The firm could argue that I failed to return the signed agreement. But if that were true, why continue to request and accept payments for nearly three years without chasing for a signature? Under SRA guidance, firms are legally bound to retain signed engagement documents. And when I asked both regulators to retrieve mine, they failed to respond.

The line about invoices being “raised and paid” doesn’t address the format, the content, or the accuracy of those invoices. My complaint raised concerns about:

• Vague descriptions
• Retrospective charges
• Billing for procedural cleanup caused by solicitor error

None of that was addressed. Instead, payment was used as a shield—as if the act of paying erased the harm.

This capsule doesn’t challenge the existence of invoices. It challenges the assumption that payment equals consent, and that silence equals resolution. The billing wasn’t just vague—it was procedurally exposed.

When Oversight Appeared Only to Charge

The invoice dated 14 September 2022 is the only one that names the supervising partner directly—and it’s the only one that carried an outstanding balance.

The work described was carried out by the firm, with no timestamped evidence of the supervising partner’s direct involvement. Yet her name appears as the billing solicitor.

If she was supervising the case, why was she invisible in the correspondence? And if she was not involved, why was she named on the invoice?

This wasn’t oversight. It was procedural appearance—used to formalise billing, not accountability.

Preparation of Bundle

When Absence Was Reframed as Completion

The senior partner states that I was not charged for the preparation of a court bundle for the hearing on 16 May 2022, noting that the invoices “do not include any charge” for that work. But this sidesteps the central issue: I was advised that a bundle would be prepared, and solicitor time was recorded during that period—time that was never accounted for in terms of output.

An email dated 09 March 2022 confirms the solicitor’s intention to prepare a bundle for the hearing. She wrote:

“I anticipate [preparation] will involve my forwarding to the Court a Bundle of correspondence passing between the opposing solicitor and the expert…”

That wasn’t a suggestion. It was a procedural commitment—attached to a quoted fee of £720. But no bundle was produced. And the claim that I wasn’t charged for it sidesteps the real issue: solicitor time was recorded, expectations were set, and delivery never occurred.

The absence of a line item labelled “bundle preparation” does not remove the procedural expectation. If time was recorded and no bundle was produced, then the question remains: what was I paying for?

This capsule does not allege a specific invoice entry. It documents the expectation of delivery, the absence of that delivery, and the retrospective framing used to imply that no harm occurred. Silence in the invoice does not amount to clarity in the record.

Expert Fees

When Responsibility Was Shifted Without Consent

The senior partner’s response reframes the issue of expert fees as “previously addressed,” citing a solicitor’s letter and the SRA’s decision not to investigate further. But this capsule documents what those responses failed to clarify:

• I was not consulted before the Defendant’s solicitors issued Part 35 Questions to the expert
• I was not advised of the cost implications until after the questions were submitted
• I was then told I was liable for fees I had not authorised

The solicitor’s response did not address the lack of informed consent, nor the procedural failure to protect me from unexpected financial exposure. The SRA’s decision not to investigate reflects regulatory inertia—not procedural resolution.

This capsule does not repeat old complaints. It documents how financial liability was shifted without consultation, and how retrospective framing was used to suggest that consent had been given.

Narrative as Invoice

When Administrative Steps Became Billable

The senior partner claims that I was not charged for the filing of the Notice of Change of Solicitor, stating that it was merely included in the invoice narrative as a timeline entry. But the invoice dated 14 December 2022 shows that £2,467.60 worth of solicitor time was recorded for that period, and I was charged £2,000.

The issue is not whether the Notice was listed—it’s whether administrative steps were bundled into chargeable time and presented as part of a discount. The solicitor’s invoice narratives often served as retroactive justifications, not transparent breakdowns.

This capsule does not dispute the existence of the invoice. It questions whether the inclusion of procedural steps—like the Notice of Change—was used to inflate time, obscure billing boundaries, and present administrative actions as client-facing value.

A discount does not erase opacity. And narrative does not equal consent.

Law Society Standard

When Formatting Masked Substance

The senior partner maintains that the invoices were “broken down clearly” and “prepared in accordance with the Law Society Standard.” But formatting is not the issue. The concern is substance—what was billed, why it was billed, and whether the descriptions provided were procedurally transparent.

My complaint did not challenge the presence of VAT or disbursement categories. It challenged vague line items, retrospective charges, and billing for remedial work caused by solicitor error.

A formatted invoice can still obscure accountability. And a standard template does not guarantee clarity.

This capsule does not dispute the existence of categories. It documents how formatting was used to imply legitimacy, while the underlying content remained procedurally exposed.

Without Clarity

When Payment Was Used to Mask Reputational Fallout

The senior partner insists that the £2,400 payment requested on 14 December 2022 was not limited to issues surrounding the Witness Statements, and that the receipted invoice dated 20 February 2023 shows work valued at over £3,000, with a discount applied.

But this framing sidesteps the core issue: the reputational fallout surrounding the Statements of Truth was central to that billing period, and the invoice bundled multiple tasks retroactively—without transparency or client consent.

The invoice narrative did not separate reputational damage control from remedial actions. It did not clarify which charges related to safeguarding retractions, which were administrative, and which were strategic appeasement. Instead, it presented a block of solicitor time as discounted value—without acknowledging that the harm being “mopped up” was caused by the solicitor herself.

This capsule does not dispute the invoice total. It documents how billing was used to obscure reputational risk, procedural failure, and the pressure placed on clients to retract confirmed safeguarding statements.

Statements of Truth

When Prior Responses Were Used to Close the Record

The senior partner asserts that my concerns were “previously addressed” in January 2023, and that the SRA chose not to investigate further. But those responses did not resolve the contradictions—they deferred them. The full procedural and reputational implications only became visible in 2025, after reviewing the timeline, the off-record engagement, and the misuse of CPR 17.

The SRA’s decision not to investigate reflects regulatory inertia—not procedural resolution. And the attempt to close the matter by citing prior correspondence ignores the fact that discovery was obstructed, not delayed.

This capsule does not repeat old complaints. It documents how those complaints were reframed, deferred, and buried—until the record made them visible.

Off Record, On Impact

When Instruction Was Denied but Engagement Persisted

The senior partner claims that the solicitor was “quite correct” in stating at the 16 May 2022 hearing that she had not been instructed throughout the matter. But this framing ignores the documented reality: she was actively engaged off record from March 2021 onward, providing advice, managing correspondence, and shaping procedural decisions—without formal instruction, but with full influence.

The senior partner refers to an email dated 19 April 2021, quoting the solicitor as saying she would “be available to provide advice and assistance on an ad hoc basis.”

But I have no record of that email. It does not appear in my correspondence trail, and I was never made aware of it at the time. If it exists, it was not shared with me—and its absence only deepens the procedural grey zone I was placed in.

By the time of the 16 May 2022 hearing, the solicitor had:

• Reviewed and commented on key documents
• Not advised me of cost implications until after the questions were submitted
• Corresponded with the Defendant’s solicitors
• Positioned herself as a strategic advisor—without going on record

Her statement to the court—that she had not been instructed—was technically framed, but procedurally misleading. It erased over a year of off-record engagement and positioned me as a Litigant in Person, despite having paid for solicitor input.

This capsule does not dispute the absence of a formal retainer. It documents how off-record engagement created procedural exposure—and how that exposure was later denied in court to protect the solicitor’s record, not the client’s position.

Framed by Favour

When Off-Record Advice Was Used to Shift Responsibility

The senior partner quotes the solicitor’s 19 April 2021 email to suggest that I chose to “deal with the matter myself” while she remained available on an ad hoc basis. But that framing ignores the context—and the silence that followed.

In a telephone conversation that same month, I explained that I was deeply concerned about costs. I needed help navigating legal procedures, especially the Civil Procedure Rules, but couldn’t afford full representation. The off-record arrangement wasn’t my invention—it was a compromise, initiated by the solicitor herself, to keep costs low while maintaining input.

That compromise came at a price.

The reputational fallout surrounding the Statements of Truth became central to the billing period that followed.

Yet the invoice narrative bundled multiple tasks—safeguarding retractions, remedial actions, and strategic appeasement—into a single block of solicitor time, presented as discounted value. It did not separate harm from remedy. It did not clarify which charges were administrative, which were reputational, and which were caused by solicitor error.

This capsule does not dispute the invoice total. It documents how billing was used to obscure the solicitor’s role in creating the very harm she was paid to resolve—and how off-record advice became a tool for shifting responsibility back onto the client.

Revenue Over Remedy

When Expansion Protected the System That Profited From It

After the merger, the firm grew in size, visibility, and institutional weight. But that expansion didn’t just benefit the firm—it benefited the regulators too.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) calculates annual fees based on solicitor headcount, turnover, and risk profile. When a firm expands—adding offices, staff, and client volume—its regulatory fees increase. That’s more money into the SRA’s operating pot.

The Legal Ombudsman (LO), while not charging firms directly per complaint, is funded through government grants and indirect contributions from the legal sector. Larger firms mean more complaints, more oversight, and more justification for budget increases.

So when I submitted my formal complaint in February 2025—documenting solicitor misconduct, billing contradictions, and safeguarding breaches—I wasn’t just challenging a firm. I was challenging a system that profits from the very growth that shields it.

The SRA labelled my concerns a “service matter.” The LO claimed I was “out of time.” But neither acknowledged the structural delays, the merger fallout, or the financial incentive to protect the firms they oversee.

This capsule doesn’t allege conspiracy. It documents structural alignment—and the silence that followed.

One Firm, Two Faces

When Legal Registration Was Used to Deflect Complaint Validity

The firm’s legal entity—registered with Companies House and the SRA—is distinct from its public-facing trading name, adopted after a merger.

Legally, they are one and the same. But procedurally, that distinction can be exploited. If a complaint references the trading name without anchoring it to the registered entity, the firm can deflect scrutiny by claiming:

• “We don’t recognise this entity.”
• “This isn’t the firm registered under that name.”
• “You’ve submitted to the wrong body.”

That’s not confusion. It’s engineered ambiguity—used to delay, redirect, or deny accountability.

I’ve pre-empted that risk. I’ve named the senior partner of the merged entity. I’ve referenced the trading name, the merger date, and anchored my complaint to the registered legal entity—while exposing the public-facing name that shaped client perception.

Deflection by Date

When Complaint Timing Was Used to Bury Substance

The senior partner’s framing in his 26 March 2025 reply suggests that my concerns were historic and already known to me in 2021 and 2022.

He claims the issues “were not raised with him at the time but they were known to me,” and that I was “likely aware” of the complaints by January 2023—referencing the solicitor’s 27 January letter.

But that framing is structurally misleading. It implies I had procedural clarity in 2021 and 2022—when in reality, I was still trusting the firm, still absorbing solicitor advice, and still navigating the emotional fallout of safeguarding failures.

My first documented concerns emerged in December 2022, and even then, I was seeking resolution—not escalation. The January 2023 emails show me asking questions and protecting my son—not launching a formal complaint.

I did not receive the senior partner’s complaint response until 26 March 2025. I only began unpacking its contradictions in July 2025, when I revisited the record and realised what had been missed. The SRA’s decision to label my complaint a “service matter” and the Legal Ombudsman’s claim that I was out of date to make a complaint reflect regulator assumptions—not forensic truth.

As clarified in Taken at Their Word, the 27 January letter was used to imply closure without addressing breach. And as documented in Representation Without Protection, the full weight of the contradictions only became visible in 2025. This wasn’t delay—it was discovery obstructed by deflection.

The senior partner refers to himself as Senior Partner, but I have no timestamped evidence confirming his involvement prior to my complaint being filed with the firm on 24 February 2025. There is no indication that he oversaw litigation or billing before the merger and rebranding in November 2022. His role appears retrospective—not contemporaneous.

And his framing ignores a critical fact: the majority of the breaches I documented occurred after the solicitor went on record in October 2022. These weren’t historic misunderstandings.

They were on-record failures—committed during a period of formal instruction, merger implementation, and regulatory visibility. These breaches weren’t legacy issues. They were merger-era failures—visible, timestamped, and regulator-facing.

Shielded by Title

When Oversight Was Named but Never Activated

In January 2023, the solicitor referred me to her “Supervising Partner”—but didn’t name her until 27 January. That partner was Head of Litigation. Not Head of Complaints. Not visible in correspondence. Not copied in. Not active in oversight.

I wasn’t advised to contact the senior partner. I had to ask a friend to find out who the Complaints Director even was. Why? Because I suspected the supervisor was shielding the solicitor—possibly for her own ends. She was the solicitor’s supervisor. But if she had been supervising effectively, we wouldn’t be documenting three contradiction-proof reports to expose the fallout.

The senior partner’s claim that I was “advised to complain in writing to him” is unsupported by any timestamped evidence. It appears to be based on internal assumption—not documented referral. If the supervisor passed that message to him, where is the record? If he was the designated Complaints Director, why was his role invisible until 2025?

This wasn’t oversight. It was procedural fiction—where titles were used to imply accountability, but no one stepped forward when it mattered.

When Deflection Became Design

 And the Record Refused to Be Buried

The senior partner’s framing wasn’t just misleading—it was strategic.

It echoed the Legal Ombudsman’s language, sidestepped regulatory scrutiny, and reframed breach as delay.

But the record holds timestamped truth.

And the contradictions only became visible when I revisited the archive in 2025.

What follows is not speculation.

It’s the forensic unpacking of institutional alignment, merger-era failures, and the scripting of silence.

Continue reading

Litigant-in-Person Record III

Page 2 of 3 follows

When “Likely Aware” Became a Procedural Shield

The record doesn’t just survive deflection.
It exposes the design behind it.

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved