Judges who blog

I just came across ‘Trevor‘, a blog written by a Magistrate. Reading through some of the entries, you could accuse him of being a human being which, considering my view on the Judiciary as a whole, means that I may have to vary my opinions in future. I found this blog through the UK Human Rights blog entry about the banning of blogging in any judicial capacity.

I want to explore a couple of comments from the HR blog because I feel that they are important issues; the first written by an anonymous writer on the Near Legal housing law blog argues that the ban is “short-sighted” and likely to have a “damaging effect on public understanding of the legal system and transparency“.

Royal 13 B.VIII, f.22In my experience, the public have very little understanding of the legal system and the profession as a whole do their utmost to ensure that the public never does. Like the Cistercian monks, they maintain domination over the law by clinging to Latin, an obscure language that, while at the root of English, does little to foster understanding in this modern age.

There may be value in this medieval language but when a member of the public is presented with terminology such as a mensa et thoro or absque hoc they do not immediately know what it might mean and most importantly, they will never know the nuances inherent in its use within the legal profession. The result is that they have to call in a professional, a solicitor and/or a barrister who will interpret the obscure meanings. The public are not part of the club, they will not have lunch with their opposition, discuss a deal over drinks or on the tennis court.

With the removal of most legal aid, the public are even more at the mercy of the legal system and the courts. Any forum that fosters understanding must be encouraged in order to redress the imbalance which has formed as a result of changes to legal aid and the ability to have a fair trial only if you are able to pay for it.

Another comment comes from the guidance issued to members of the judiciary which reads;

“They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general”.

'Hmmm...It is: innocent until proven guilty? Or is it: guilty until proven innocent?'The democratic process and purported transparency in public office demands that the truth always be made known. If a judge finds himself at odds with the laws as passed by Parliament, they must interpret them to the best of their ability but it is this self-interpretation that leads to such a bollixed system and gives an out to a judge who might make a decision that reeks of injustice – it’s simply not good enough.

I’m not saying that being a judge is an easy role but when anyone in public office decides to use their position inappropriately as in the Guardian’s ‘Who is judging the judges?‘, all decisions of that judge should immediately come under scrutiny to ensure that there was no bias, corruption or other hidden agenda or just plain incompetence.



Abuse of human rights could kill off all rights

Criminals who use the human rights legislation as a scapegoat are putting the entire concept at risk.  This government will seize any opportunity to remove protective legislation as quickly as possible thus leaving us vulnerable and exposed to abuse.

The Sunday Telegraph campaign to stop foreign criminals from claiming the right to a “family life” in order to avoid deportation is excellent news for justice but they should not allow the government to hijack the situation and use it as an excuse to ignore human rights.

It is right that up to 200 foreign offenders who successfully avoided being sent home should have been prevented from doing so but it it not right for Lord Carlile, a LibDem peer, to claim that the public are at risk – this is too broad a statement that can lead to broad changes which affect us all in the long term.

A report by Dominic Raab, a Tory MP who said that “unelected and inexperienced European judges risk triggering a constitutional crisis by attacking the will of politicians” seems to be blissfully unaware that there is already a ‘constitutional crisis’ and that it is NOT the “will of politicians” that is of any importance but rather the will of the people.

What little constitution we have is all that protects us from the will of politicians who have no greater agenda than to criminalise use, remove our right to justice, remove our right to a fair trial, any presumption of innocence under law and more importantly, the treaty that is the Magna Carta which is the cornerstone of common law in this country and still very much in effect although the government and our politicians would have us believe otherwise.

When Nick Clegg was approached with regard to his “Your Freedoms” campaign; he has totally ignored all the factors highlight by Lord Carlile in his role of ‘independent reviewer of anti-terror laws’ because Clegg failed to address any of the many concerns that things like the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 have allowed to happen.

Where it is claimed that ‘recent judgements’ have been at odds with ‘common sense and public opinion’ they speak with forked-tongue because many of the laws introduced by Labour and now upheld by the ConDem hybrid fly in the face of common sense and public opinion yet they take no notice of the concerns of the people.

If anyone with a criminal past comes to this country with criminal intent then they should not necessarily be protected by human rights legislation that is not there to protect their actions, but this devious government cannot be allowed to remove our rights in blanket fashion under the guise of ‘common sense’ and ‘public opinion’ that simply does not exist in the way they claim.

Unfortunately because of successive corrupt and self interested governments, the powers that be have not just crept over our rights but have driven a steamroller straight through them.  Sadly, this lack of democracy and denial of attention to justice and basic human rights now threatens the last bastion of true justice and protection for the common man – we all need to get together and declare “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this any more” – Beale, from the movie Network.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

There is an interesting post on the “Land of the Free” website.

Although this post is entitled “Become a bailiff and earn £5.93 per hour;” the information provided is interesting because it highlights additional stealth legislation that was introduced in the statutory instrument known as “Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004” (DVCV).  One might well wonder how the title of this act relates to the powers supposedly bestowed on bailiffs.

A freedom of information request was made (ref: FS50159091) on 13th August 2009 asking questions of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents over the issue of forced search and entry powers.

Some definitions are in order:

CEO or Civilian Enforcement Officer and ASA or Approved Enforcement Agencies are contracted to enforce magistrates’ court warrants on behalf of HMCS (Her Majesty’s Court Service).

Perhaps the most important point to remember – as clarified on page 2 of the decision notice available on the ICO website as shown in paragraph five it is stated quite clearly that:

The MOJ has stressed that the Guidance document requested by the complainant is not provided to all bailiffs but only to ‘specific people enforcing specific warrants’, namely CEOs and AEAs. Furthermore, the powers of search and entry under the DVCV Act only apply to CEOs and AEAs where there is a warrant for arrest, detention or commitment in proceedings or in connection with any criminal offence. They cannot therefore be used to enforce civil debts.

So when a bailiff stands at your door and threatens all sorts of action under the guise of this legislation, they are doing so unlawfully and illegally and their actions should be reported to the relevant court – these powers cannot be used to enforce civil debts – remember that!  In all probability they are neither CEOs nor from AEAs but simply bully-boys on the bandwagon of misery depending on your fear and lack of understanding to threaten you into giving them money.

There is a lot of dancing around in this document and examples of where the Commissioner has provided guidance to the HMCS which the HMCS then relied upon.  Although the Commissioner explained this ‘assistance’ to the HMCS it is clear that this is not an ideal situation for the complainant.

It is also noteworthy that although the HMCS failed to meet deadlines set throughout the course of the investigation and offered no explanation for their delays – there are no penalties applicable to that failure.  Would a member of the public at the hands of the HMCS get away with such behaviour – of course not!

Lawful Rebellion – Clause 61 Magna Carta (1215)

The Magna Carta is also referred to as the Great Charter of Liberties.

Article 61 of the Magna Carta is important as it defines certain God-given and inalienable rights; it reads:

Since for God, for the improvement of our kingdom, and to better allay the discord arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, and wishing that the concessions be enjoyed in their entirety with firm endurance (for ever), we give and grant to the barons the following security:

Namely, that the barons choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom[1] they wish, who must with all their might observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter. Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.

And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty days, reckoned from the day on which the offence was declared to us (or to the chief justice if we are out of the realm), the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.

Whoever in the country wants to, may take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five barons for the execution of all the previously mentioned matters and, with the barons, to distress us to the utmost of his power. We publicly and freely give permission to every one who wishes to take this oath, and we shall never forbid any one from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling to this oath, we shall by our command compel them to swear to it.

If any one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is in any other manner incapacitated so the previously mentioned provisions cannot be undertaken, the remaining barons of the twenty-five shall choose another in his place as they think fit, who shall be duly sworn in like the rest.

If there is any disagreement amongst the twenty-five barons on any matter presented to them, or if some of them are unwilling or unable to be present, what the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if all twenty-five had consented in this.

The said twenty-five barons shall swear to faithfully observe all the aforesaid articles and will do all they can to ensure that the articles are observed by others.

And we shall procure nothing from any one, either personally or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never make use of it ourselves or through someone else.

So what does this all mean to the average flesh-and-blood human being?  It means that despite what we are being told, there is in place a charter to protect our rights and that governments have sought to hide those rights beneath a sea of legislation and Acts of Parliament that seek only to undermine those rights.

This forces us to consider things in a new light – we need to understand the difference between what is lawful and what is legal.  A great many believe that they are one and the same but this is not true.  A definition provided by the Family Guardian Fellowship reads as follows:

It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective.

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

  • “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
  • “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle.
  • “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive.

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,”.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

The phrase “law of the land” and the “law of the people” are mentioned in this definition; this is an important point to remember as the Magna Carta upholds and supports this law of the land or law of the people and is often called “Common Law”.

Legalese is a kind of long-winded jargon used by lawyers which it is difficult to understand. Contracts, insurance policies, and guarantees are among the documents in which you may find it.  It is meant to mystify and confuse the layman and is used by those wishing to exercise control over us and to enforce a system that has become corrupt.

The legal system depends on legalese to convince us that their processes are lawful and must be obeyed – this is not true and a closer examination must be carried out to assure yourself that the legal system is not acting lawfully at all and remember that a legal system can be defective.

[1] Are you aware that on 7th February 2001, twenty-five Barons petitioned the Queen in accordance with clause 61 of the Magna Carta in protest of the treasonous act of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair in signing the Treaty of Nice thus unlawfully causing the destruction of fundamental British liberties?

Many thousands of people have since become aware of the Lawful Rebellion that is available to them under the Magna Carta and in supporting the petition of the Barons, are themselves upholding Common Law which remains the Law of the Land – these Freemen on The Land, in entering into Lawful Rebellion are themselves petitioning the Queen under clause 61 of the Magna Carta inviting Her Majesty to uphold the oath she gave at her Coronation and to protect the sovereign rights of the people.

Avoiding contempt of court: Tips for bloggers and tweeters

Post: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/07/avoiding-contempt-of-court-tips-for-bloggers-and-tweeters/comment-page-1/#comment-4006
Date: March 7, 2011
Author: Adam Wagner

Our Response:

Legislation introduced in this country, such as POCA, undermines the judicial process and removes the presumption of innocence before guilt is established or proven.

It is only right therefore that the media should not prejudice a case through negligent or emotive reporting that serves no purpose other than the sale of newspapers through sensationalism and could pervert the course of justice to the point that a guilty person might be freed and more importantly an innocent person might be found guilty.

Another aspect of fair-play however is the contempt the courts and officers of the courts (as well as government departments who feel they are protected from prosecution) that occurs in the execution of the law or in upholding legislation which is poorly understood and for which no controls are in place.

An example of this lies with our pet hate POCA (Proceeds of Crime Act), which allows management receivers (officers of the court) to be assigned to “manage assets” and who then proceed to liquidate those assets and pocket the proceeds themselves.

This piece of legislation provides for such companies to benefit to the tune of £17million (2007 figures) and there are no checks on balances of their activities; there is no one to oversee the results of their work; no one is held to account when errors are found and there is no one with whom responsibility for the actions of these officers of the court lay.

The course of justice is perverted and there is no one paying attention to this travesty – so much for transparency when the whole process is so glass-like that no one can see what is going on and more importantly, no one really seems to care.