Directive on Mediation Update
The Directive on Mediation has been adopted on 21 May 2008. As you are aware via this blog the process was not democratically conducted at EU level via the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle under the direction of New Labour MEP Arelene McCarthy. I was not interviewed even although I had the only argument against the proposals and was in fact proposing another model "The Competition Model" premised on a democratic argument. Moreover, the papers I submitted as evidence with my published response did not form part of the published response to the Consultation – why? As a consequence of the undemocratic processing of the Consultation Paper, I emailed every EU Justice Committee member on email of my concerns as well as filing a complaint with the Ombudsman - nothing occurred. The EU Parliament passed Arlene McCarthy MEP's report IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF NONSENSE/FALSEHOOD OCCURRING VIA NEW LABOUR’S PROCESSING OF MEDIATION/ADR IN THE UK VIA THE WOOLF REFORMS..
However, all is not lost: as you are aware I have been in litigation over 13 years and three cases which have all been corrupted my currently being in a "civil" liberty situation. I have now issued proceedings on the Royal Courts of Justice and Respondents will have received sealed orders today. I do have to seek permission to appeal, however, this should be known in a few days. I have asked for judicial review of (a) Masons case; (b) S J Berwin & Co and others (first case) and (c) S J Berwin & Co and others (second case) as well as all of my research on ADR.
There is a dilema: The Police have failed to act concerning my informing them I have been subjected to criminality and organised crime on three cases. The Queen is head of the Police. She is also head of the Criminal Division of the courts and cases are brought in her name "Regina v ....". Prisons are also HM Prison's!! Also, the new promotions in the ranks of the top tier of the Civil Divison of the Royal Courts are Judges who are all "knights of the realm". This therefore establishes that the Judiciary is "Monarchy". Independence of the Judiciary is therefore not certain at all or is potentially as independent as the Queen or her family are.
However, Lord Chancellor Straw is an elected MP and reports to the elected Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Royal Prerogative is given to statutes - positive rule of law. Therefore there is an appearance of "democracy" but it is subservient to Monarchy.
Traditionally, in Scotland, a Queen or King is "equal" to the people. Equality before the law should follow that the judicial system is monarchy. However, I argue that Justice is fundamental to a democracy because without justice you do not get democracy - equality before the law is therefore also fundamental to democracy. This then begs the question why the Woolf Reforms - "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" effectively means that if you do not litigate you cannot get justice. So why is CPR Rule 26 and ADR being promoted as "Access to Justice" when it is clearly something else - access to "compromise" or access "FROM justice". This is a problem because CPR Rule 26 removes a party from the judicial system to another forum: mediation. The Mediator is neutral and therefore cannot provide "equality" because it is THE PARTIES who decide the outcome of the case which can be pro rata 1:99; 20:80; [50:50]; 60:40; 99:1 what I call "contemporary equality": both parties are also gagged in this forum as an outcome.
If the system is democratic (and public) then CPR Rule 26 cannot exist within it because a perversion of the course of justice occurs which is criminality. If the system is monarchial then the Woolf Reforms and CPR Rule 26 is treason by a judge (because he cannot provide a subject with equality before a Queen/King - R v Hennessy [1758]1 BURR applies.
This then causes a constitutional concern: how did the Access to Justice Act 1999 receive Royal Assent - has the democratic process (under Tony Blair PM) sought to mislead/undermine the Queen or did the Queen or another member of the Royal House of Windsor seek to do so using the democratic process?
However, the consequence is that I have not been able to obtain Justice via a substantive trial albeit I did receive justice on one occasion via a procedural hearing before Lord Justice Lindsay. The issue of "independence of the judiciary" is pertinent. (In a democracy “independence of the judiciary” means the judge is free to objectively reason on the basis of natural law – no influence from politics or monarchy then!). Moreover, the current Royal House is actually Saxe-Coburg and is in reality a German / Russian Royal family. Matthew Pinsent, Earl of Burford and others are the true Kings/Queens of the UK.
But there has to be a reason why I cannot get Justice or Equality before the law. (There is a hypothesis/myth in my family: there exists a Pedigree from the 12th to 17th Centuries establishing that the Jermy family were knighted and that King John Balioll's daughter, Ellin, married Sir William Jermy. (There is a note which states: Thomas of Brotherton, 2nd brother to King Edward 2nd [17th child out of 20], Count of Norfolk and Earl Marshall of England gave to his brother-in-law Sir John Jermy knight two parts of Metfield Manor in Suffolk and the third part to his wife for the assignment of her dower). Because of the existence of this pedigree all Jermy's of Norfolk claim to be descendants of this line - however, parish records are missing, there are name variations and the pedigree only skeleton's the line of the heir, not other family members - there is also very little historical knowlege in the public domain. (My mother was Lesley Diane Jermy of Norfolk: my brother cannot establish a link but has gone back to about 1770 as an amateur geneologist). If there is a link to this Royal House then that might explain why I cannot get Justice or independence of the judiciary or equality before the law - the Queen or her family is not likely to be equal to another royal house!!!, as technically I would not be a subject, but a citizen of a democracy!)
Therefore, there is a Constitutional Debate that needs to be sorted out concerning Justice as Democracy by the people for the people and Monarchy by the Queen for the subjects of the Kingdoms. In the mixture is the muddle of the Woolf Reforms and my research. Are they undermining Democracy (and I argue I do not currently exist in a democracy which I can prove) or are they undermining the Monarchy and the issue is treason (Obviously I am not anti-Monarchy if I am potentially descended from a Royal House of Scotland, but likewise I equally recognise that the current Queen is Saxe-Coburg (Windsor)and should be sitting on the German or Russian Thrones - I also recognise the rights of Matthew Pinsent, Earl of Burford and others to their rights to succession on an equal footing and believe the next King/Queen should be competitively open season!, my view being the Queen dies in situ) OR do we now exist in something else and what exactly!
Europe on ADR
Directive 2008/52/EC
There is treachery occurring in the courts and organised crime occurring in the Ministry of Justice.
If we exist in a democracy then CPR Rule 26 has to go. However, democratically Mediation/ADR can exist outside the judicial system and legal profession: the competition model requires 3 things:
(a) No lawyer, judge, barrister practices ADR
(b) A Mediation society akin to the Law Society is created to establish professionalism of mediators
(c) All towns and cities that have a court also have a mediation centre to facilitate a means to prevent differing standards within mediation.
By its very nature mediation requires to be "outside" law as it is an "opposite", hence it is called "alternative" dispute resolution. "within" it facilitates "undermine" of a judicial system and the application of the rule of law. A two tier service within the judiciary and legal profession should not exist - professionalism dictates that lawyers are about law and the application of the rule of law - they should not have the opportunity to switch the tap on and off as they choose. Statistical data is necessary to establish how effective ADR is in society: this is necessary data to establish the strength of "Democracy"!
Tony Blair MP and Woolf and the Access to Justice Act 1999 is largely "spin" - no surprise there then!
To the Lord Chancellor
I require "Justice" if the parties refuse to settle. In that regard, I require judges who can "reason" independently on the premis of natural law - I am just going to have to run with any statutory issues. I also require a judgment that states the rule of law substantively and how it is applied to my case(s). I require an absolute absence of monarchial influence and organised crime from your department. If that means my case has to be transferred to a safe jurisdiction in Europe or elsewhere then I will require this to be facilitated.
However, all is not lost: as you are aware I have been in litigation over 13 years and three cases which have all been corrupted my currently being in a "civil" liberty situation. I have now issued proceedings on the Royal Courts of Justice and Respondents will have received sealed orders today. I do have to seek permission to appeal, however, this should be known in a few days. I have asked for judicial review of (a) Masons case; (b) S J Berwin & Co and others (first case) and (c) S J Berwin & Co and others (second case) as well as all of my research on ADR.
There is a dilema: The Police have failed to act concerning my informing them I have been subjected to criminality and organised crime on three cases. The Queen is head of the Police. She is also head of the Criminal Division of the courts and cases are brought in her name "Regina v ....". Prisons are also HM Prison's!! Also, the new promotions in the ranks of the top tier of the Civil Divison of the Royal Courts are Judges who are all "knights of the realm". This therefore establishes that the Judiciary is "Monarchy". Independence of the Judiciary is therefore not certain at all or is potentially as independent as the Queen or her family are.
However, Lord Chancellor Straw is an elected MP and reports to the elected Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Royal Prerogative is given to statutes - positive rule of law. Therefore there is an appearance of "democracy" but it is subservient to Monarchy.
Traditionally, in Scotland, a Queen or King is "equal" to the people. Equality before the law should follow that the judicial system is monarchy. However, I argue that Justice is fundamental to a democracy because without justice you do not get democracy - equality before the law is therefore also fundamental to democracy. This then begs the question why the Woolf Reforms - "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" effectively means that if you do not litigate you cannot get justice. So why is CPR Rule 26 and ADR being promoted as "Access to Justice" when it is clearly something else - access to "compromise" or access "FROM justice". This is a problem because CPR Rule 26 removes a party from the judicial system to another forum: mediation. The Mediator is neutral and therefore cannot provide "equality" because it is THE PARTIES who decide the outcome of the case which can be pro rata 1:99; 20:80; [50:50]; 60:40; 99:1 what I call "contemporary equality": both parties are also gagged in this forum as an outcome.
If the system is democratic (and public) then CPR Rule 26 cannot exist within it because a perversion of the course of justice occurs which is criminality. If the system is monarchial then the Woolf Reforms and CPR Rule 26 is treason by a judge (because he cannot provide a subject with equality before a Queen/King - R v Hennessy [1758]1 BURR applies.
This then causes a constitutional concern: how did the Access to Justice Act 1999 receive Royal Assent - has the democratic process (under Tony Blair PM) sought to mislead/undermine the Queen or did the Queen or another member of the Royal House of Windsor seek to do so using the democratic process?
However, the consequence is that I have not been able to obtain Justice via a substantive trial albeit I did receive justice on one occasion via a procedural hearing before Lord Justice Lindsay. The issue of "independence of the judiciary" is pertinent. (In a democracy “independence of the judiciary” means the judge is free to objectively reason on the basis of natural law – no influence from politics or monarchy then!). Moreover, the current Royal House is actually Saxe-Coburg and is in reality a German / Russian Royal family. Matthew Pinsent, Earl of Burford and others are the true Kings/Queens of the UK.
But there has to be a reason why I cannot get Justice or Equality before the law. (There is a hypothesis/myth in my family: there exists a Pedigree from the 12th to 17th Centuries establishing that the Jermy family were knighted and that King John Balioll's daughter, Ellin, married Sir William Jermy. (There is a note which states: Thomas of Brotherton, 2nd brother to King Edward 2nd [17th child out of 20], Count of Norfolk and Earl Marshall of England gave to his brother-in-law Sir John Jermy knight two parts of Metfield Manor in Suffolk and the third part to his wife for the assignment of her dower). Because of the existence of this pedigree all Jermy's of Norfolk claim to be descendants of this line - however, parish records are missing, there are name variations and the pedigree only skeleton's the line of the heir, not other family members - there is also very little historical knowlege in the public domain. (My mother was Lesley Diane Jermy of Norfolk: my brother cannot establish a link but has gone back to about 1770 as an amateur geneologist). If there is a link to this Royal House then that might explain why I cannot get Justice or independence of the judiciary or equality before the law - the Queen or her family is not likely to be equal to another royal house!!!, as technically I would not be a subject, but a citizen of a democracy!)
Therefore, there is a Constitutional Debate that needs to be sorted out concerning Justice as Democracy by the people for the people and Monarchy by the Queen for the subjects of the Kingdoms. In the mixture is the muddle of the Woolf Reforms and my research. Are they undermining Democracy (and I argue I do not currently exist in a democracy which I can prove) or are they undermining the Monarchy and the issue is treason (Obviously I am not anti-Monarchy if I am potentially descended from a Royal House of Scotland, but likewise I equally recognise that the current Queen is Saxe-Coburg (Windsor)and should be sitting on the German or Russian Thrones - I also recognise the rights of Matthew Pinsent, Earl of Burford and others to their rights to succession on an equal footing and believe the next King/Queen should be competitively open season!, my view being the Queen dies in situ) OR do we now exist in something else and what exactly!
Europe on ADR
Directive 2008/52/EC
There is treachery occurring in the courts and organised crime occurring in the Ministry of Justice.
If we exist in a democracy then CPR Rule 26 has to go. However, democratically Mediation/ADR can exist outside the judicial system and legal profession: the competition model requires 3 things:
(a) No lawyer, judge, barrister practices ADR
(b) A Mediation society akin to the Law Society is created to establish professionalism of mediators
(c) All towns and cities that have a court also have a mediation centre to facilitate a means to prevent differing standards within mediation.
By its very nature mediation requires to be "outside" law as it is an "opposite", hence it is called "alternative" dispute resolution. "within" it facilitates "undermine" of a judicial system and the application of the rule of law. A two tier service within the judiciary and legal profession should not exist - professionalism dictates that lawyers are about law and the application of the rule of law - they should not have the opportunity to switch the tap on and off as they choose. Statistical data is necessary to establish how effective ADR is in society: this is necessary data to establish the strength of "Democracy"!
Tony Blair MP and Woolf and the Access to Justice Act 1999 is largely "spin" - no surprise there then!
To the Lord Chancellor
I require "Justice" if the parties refuse to settle. In that regard, I require judges who can "reason" independently on the premis of natural law - I am just going to have to run with any statutory issues. I also require a judgment that states the rule of law substantively and how it is applied to my case(s). I require an absolute absence of monarchial influence and organised crime from your department. If that means my case has to be transferred to a safe jurisdiction in Europe or elsewhere then I will require this to be facilitated.
posted by Lesley McDade at 5:49 pm
0 comments
