Judge, Jury and Executioner - words of wisdom
There is a gaelic proverb:
In a Raven's Nest you should find a Raven
This rule of nature premised in law would state:
In a Judgment, you should find a rule of law!
Therefore, independence of the judiciary means the rule of law is "applied", not "not applied" if the judiciary want to be truly "independent".
Perhaps, Professor Richard Susskind OBE would like to inform the press, what happened on the Lesley McDade v Masons case. Presumption of innocence - I don't think so. Perhaps also the HMCS would like to inform the Lord Chancellor so that he can inform the Prime Minister - unfortunately my MP Gavin Strang prefers to "duck" rather than to "challenge" on my behalf. I live in hope that the lilly livers within the Ministry of Justice are made accountable and responsible to the electorate.
Perhaps the reason why they cannot acknowledge my research and litigations is because there would "justifiably" be some very seriously high profile heads on plates who are definitely "not beyond reproach". The corporate veil is also raised. Issues may just be treason!
The Law Society codes of conduct, I believe, do not permit lawyers to bring the profession into disrepute. There are firms that are well and truly in the gutter - I wonder when there is going to be repercussions/clean up of the law profession, let alone the judiciary. In hindsight has it been worth it?
Emeritus Professor, First class law graduate from Glasgow University, Professor of Law and Philosophy and visting professor at Strathclyde and Kings College, Liveryman with the Worshipful Company of Information Technoglogists, column in the Times, a couple of books, OBE, IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - criminal - perversion of the course of justice, criminal defamation, misconduct in public office, conspiracy with others, etc etc etc! "Professor "DisOBEdient" - all because Cathy James is a "knowingly" incompetent secretary who left a confidential memo in the public network directory because she was too dim and shag happy to bother to comply with company policy. If you were "reasonable, reasonable, reasonable" you would have sacked Cathy as "cause": you deliberately and maliciously victimised me without producing any evidence because you wanted to cover it up which is why your paperwork focused on "effect" - you were not working in my best interests you were probably trying to protect the "equity" in the firm as all equity partners are jointly liable under the Partnership Act and you claimed it was a "management decision" and failed to check the contract which made your activities "unlawful", not reasonable.
And yes I do know about "escotericism".
Discuss
In a Raven's Nest you should find a Raven
This rule of nature premised in law would state:
In a Judgment, you should find a rule of law!
Therefore, independence of the judiciary means the rule of law is "applied", not "not applied" if the judiciary want to be truly "independent".
Perhaps, Professor Richard Susskind OBE would like to inform the press, what happened on the Lesley McDade v Masons case. Presumption of innocence - I don't think so. Perhaps also the HMCS would like to inform the Lord Chancellor so that he can inform the Prime Minister - unfortunately my MP Gavin Strang prefers to "duck" rather than to "challenge" on my behalf. I live in hope that the lilly livers within the Ministry of Justice are made accountable and responsible to the electorate.
Perhaps the reason why they cannot acknowledge my research and litigations is because there would "justifiably" be some very seriously high profile heads on plates who are definitely "not beyond reproach". The corporate veil is also raised. Issues may just be treason!
The Law Society codes of conduct, I believe, do not permit lawyers to bring the profession into disrepute. There are firms that are well and truly in the gutter - I wonder when there is going to be repercussions/clean up of the law profession, let alone the judiciary. In hindsight has it been worth it?
Emeritus Professor, First class law graduate from Glasgow University, Professor of Law and Philosophy and visting professor at Strathclyde and Kings College, Liveryman with the Worshipful Company of Information Technoglogists, column in the Times, a couple of books, OBE, IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - criminal - perversion of the course of justice, criminal defamation, misconduct in public office, conspiracy with others, etc etc etc! "Professor "DisOBEdient" - all because Cathy James is a "knowingly" incompetent secretary who left a confidential memo in the public network directory because she was too dim and shag happy to bother to comply with company policy. If you were "reasonable, reasonable, reasonable" you would have sacked Cathy as "cause": you deliberately and maliciously victimised me without producing any evidence because you wanted to cover it up which is why your paperwork focused on "effect" - you were not working in my best interests you were probably trying to protect the "equity" in the firm as all equity partners are jointly liable under the Partnership Act and you claimed it was a "management decision" and failed to check the contract which made your activities "unlawful", not reasonable.
And yes I do know about "escotericism".
Discuss
posted by Lesley McDade at 2:43 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home