Sunday, July 30, 2006

Lawlessness





















Beyond Justice



















Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The Sheriff Court and ADR

Consultation Paper

Response to the Consultation Paper: The Sheriff Court and ADR


The Scottish Executive are attempting to go ahead with the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Scotland, even when it is abundently clear their is a fundamental flaw in the Directive on Mediation. The questions are loaded. Issues should have been taken out of the control of the Member State via the Subsidiarity Principle, but in any event whilst responses (all 27 of them) have been published (thread below) the result of analysis does not appear to have been published yet.

Why, oh why, is the Scottish Executive being so headstrong and dim in the face of knowledge of what the flaw is: Access FROM Justice, rather than Access TO Justice. If they process it correctly, then a whole new ball game in Jurisprudence occurs. Are they covering for the lack of intellect by the English & Welsh. They refer to research in other countries - where, when, what, how - I haven't seen any research material and the concept of ADR has a "sneaking" / "seeping" method to being instigated in Scotland. Scotland, wake up, you are sleep walking into this concept and you should be asking serious questions about this concept.

If there is a higher intellect at the European Community level, then with some luck the "Competition Model" may still overturn the regime in England & Wales and may prevent it occurring in Scotland and the rest of Europe - I can put it on my wish list rather than shit list!!

My response above is a last ditch attempt at some commonsense by the Courts. We shall see: Consultation process is open to anyone until 27 September 2006 - come on - have a go - its your legal system.

Out of pure devilment and to put the cat amongst the pigeons, notice there are no limitation periods relating to ADR. Should the Human Rights Act 1998 be used to make the Limitations Act 1980 obsolete by reason of article 6 of Schedule 1 and the right to a fair trial!!!

Monday, July 17, 2006

Anology

Gaelic Proverb

In a raven's nest you should find a raven

Anology:

In a Judgment you should find a rule of law

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Inter Galactica

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Frederick W Pomeroy RA, 1856-1924

Photobucket
Born in London, the son of an artist-craftsman. Early sculptor member of Arts and Crafts movement. Studied under Dalou at Lambeth School of Art; at R.A. Schools, 1881-5 (gold medal and travelling scholarship, 1885) Studied under Mercie in Paris, later went to Rome. First exhibited at R.A., 1885, also showed at Arts & Crafts exhibitions from 1888. A.R.A. 1907, R.A. 1917


Frederick William Pomperoy RA designed the sculpture of "Justice" atop the Old Bailey, London.

Justice the statue, was cast in bronze by Messrs Singer and Sons and covered in gold leaf. She summits the ball 195 feet above ground. She is 12 feet high with an arm span of 8 feet. The sword in her right hand is 3 feet 3 inches.

Room 101

Room 101

Lord Woolf (as he is American);
Professor Richard Susskind OBE (as he is corrupt);
The Lord Chancellor (as he is also an American);
The English Legal System (as it is legally and morally bankrupt).

101

Lord Woolf wants a "regime", which is liberalisation;
Professor Richard Susskind OBE wants courtroom IT;
The Lord Chancellor wants contemporary, alternative and privatisation;
I want a fair justice system for all, and publically!

101

Discard Rule 26 and alternative dispute resolution;
Discard anything preliminary or ex parte;
Discard Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Bingham of Cornhill, as part of the solution;
And we will again have equality and democracy.

101

To hell with my lecturers at Birbeck;
To hell with them again at the LSE;
To hell with the patronage of the EC law course at Kings College;
And now back to reality.

101

The common good ensures discovery by the wise;
And the knowledge is essential for law students;
No rights are derived from compromise;
This is the current issue concerning Jurisprudence.

101

So, in all these political nuances;
The separation of the powers is for a reason;
Do just the best "good" that you can and take no chances;
No person is indispensable, above the law, else it is act of Treason.

101

If you really want to go to heaven you will find;
The universe is the sun, moon and stars operating on the spirit;
Entry is internalisation of sense and pure thought previewed by the mind;
With externalised knowledge of how to observe and study nature and the natural prerequisite.

101

"Thy Kingdom come" when "thy will be done" is God’s promise;
Equality, fairness, impartiality and justice the highest form of Order;
"On earth as it is in heaven" is God’s will to the wise;
Judgment is the gate, doorway or border.

101

Of the quest, I anticipate that you will find success;
Law applied, not applied and no law equal progress, digress and regress in function form;
Aristotle establishes the ethical view as degeneracy, reasonableness and excess;
Whilst I re-clarify behaviour jurisprudentially as perverse, reasonable or corrupt as the natural norm.

101

Uniform application of law leads to social order and is the ideology of the Holy Grail;
Right and wrong are opposites and relative only to cause and effect;
The methodological flaw is alternative dispute resolution which is designed to fail;
As the best legal system does not need to abuse human rights, because of judicial discretion, 'equity' and intellect.

101

Solicitors, barristers and legal academics comprise a profession, educated and trained to a standard of ability inclusive of ethics;
When processed correctly, case marshalling, legal argument, advocacy and cross-examination ensure "independence of the judiciary";
With filibustering and contempt being seen as despicable dirty tricks;
Which lead to abomination and aberration, corruption and judicial subjectivity.

101

Justice is done when it is seen to be done;
Via abstract judicial reasoning;
Mind over matter, is substance over form;
With a sprinkling of magical seasoning!

Lesley McDade: 2000

Monday, July 10, 2006

Undemocratic Jack

"McConnell backs down over plans to reform courts"
Scottish Daily Mail 23 June 2006

Jack McConnell has capitulated over plans to overhaul Scotland's courts.

The Scottish Executive has shelved proposals to centralise more power under the country's most senior judge, the Lord President.

Serving and former judges said that the move would have curtailed the independence of Scotland's courts, as the Lord President is appointed by ministers.

The decision to shelve the plans emerged as the Executive detailed the legislation it will bring before the parliament between now and the election next May.

The Executive claimed it was due to the continued absence of the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, who has been treated at the Priory Clinic for stress.

Last night, retired judged Lord McCluskey said: 'I'm delighted that they have decided not to go through with it. I hope it is permanent.

This would have altered a system that has been operated successfully for decades, so the decision is proper and wise - on whatever the basis it may have been taken.'

Nationalist MSP Alasdair Morgan said: 'Governments shouldn't announce Bills they can't deliver and the First Minister committed to the Judicial Appointments Bill.

'It's really not good enough to blame the non-appearance of that Bill on a recent judicial illness. That just won't wash'."



It is undemocratic to shelve a consultation process. Even Lord McCluskey had the opportunity to participate in it. My response (below) was No 1 so I don't know how many responses there were or even whether Lord McCluskey did participate. However, the process should have become a Bill even if there was only one response. It is up to Parliament by debate via MSP's to defeat or cause a bill to be successful - it is not for undemocratic Jack to make the decision for the people of Scotland before the fact and for a de minimus reason. Is there a reason why the Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson MSP is not dealing?

Consultation Paper

Summary of Question and Answers

Discuss.

Futuristic Justice

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Justice - album: Waters of Nazereth

Photobucket
Robo Cop

Photobucket
Minority Report

Photobucket
Judge Dredd

Photobucket
Predator v Judge Dredd

Monday, July 03, 2006

European Year 2007 - Equality and Non-Discrimination

Alert, Alert, Alert

European Year 2007 is about Equality and Non-Discrimination

How can you permeate this idea down to national Member State level?

Ideas:

Rename Member States to Member "Countries" - as that is the truth of the matter. Who admits to being a "state"!!!

Restore "Justice" as an ideology in England & Wales - why?

Lord Woolf put in place via the Access to Justice Act 1999 - expedition, economy, proportionality and "contemporary equality" (see academic theory in jurisprudence post).

He usurped traditional equality, fairness, impartiality and justice in so doing.

In Christian values only a judge can place the parties before him/her as "equal before the law".

Just as Pontius Pilate judged christ - so judges judge the parties before them. It could be argued - probably via the Bible (Biblical references to Justice and Law) - that Judges are people appointed before God because they have the capacity to do the Lords Prayer "Thy kingdom come when thy will be done, in heaven as on earth. Equality is therefore fundamental to being a judge - especially in a Christian democracy, albeit it would apply to Jews and Muslims who claim descent from the same mono god via Abraham and presumably there legal systems.

Therefore, why did Lord Woolf want to "avoid litigation whenever possible", when litigation is the only process in a Christian democracy that can make the parties equal before a judge?

Is he anti-christian? Does he not understand why he was a judge? Has he been corrupted in some way and by whom? Is he a sleeper with a devious purpose? How come so many judges supported him? How come so many lawyers and barristers did not see through his proposals and, if they did, why did they not rise up against him? Is there a masterplan in operation which puts in place a "regime" in law for the 21st century to benefit whom? Is it merely a deficiency or lack of intellect at judicial level? Why did the Prime Minister "duck" when he was informed of the fundamental flaw as early as 1997 prior to implementation in 1999? Why has the situation continued to exist at today's date via Parliament? Why has no one been made accountable and responsible via Parliament?

Is 2007 - the year of Equality and Non-discrimination going to permeate within the Department of Constitutional Affairs!!!

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Truth, Justice, Humanity - support for Malcolm Kendall-Smith

Video from Malcolm Kendall-Smith

Malcolm is electronically tagged, under curfew and unable to speak to the media until October.