Misconduct in Public Office
You can run but you cannot hide:
I believe that this story is a farce and it is being manufactured, engineered by concerted and orchastrated practices so as to stop members of the Ministry of Justice and/or the Cabinet from being prosecuted for very very serious criminal offences against a democratic state:
"MPs continue to focus on arrest row
Justice questions in the Commons have been dominated by the Damian Green affair, and whether the offence of misconduct in public office should be a criminal or disciplinary matter." www.epolitix.com 10/12/08
As a criminal offence, I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, the penalty for misconduct in public office is life or 16 years.
The farce of the Speaker of the House not engaging in the formal process properly and the co-incidental (not) farce of the Police functioning without proper sanction or authority is just a wee bit too complicit for my liking: especially where my blog is concerned which is highlighting Professor Richard Susskind OBE as "doing" misconduct in public office. My blog also highlights that the "Access to Justice Act 1999" is misleading and that Lord Woolf has used a Japanese concept known as ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution / Mediation) sourcing from America via Jews, and my source is David Shapiro via S J Berwin & Co, and that I have been procedurally and substantively abused for 13 years across three litigations in the English legal system. My current case is ongoing, but on 27 November 2008 I received a "Permission Decision Refused" (Appeal Form 3) to hear my Appellant's Notice issued on or about 23 June 2008 before Mr Justice Hamblen. My court paperwork is crystal clear that I am experiencing corruption and abuse which has been onging for 13 years. Moreover it is not myself who is ducking the issues: I have now been proffered an "Oral Hearing" which I have requested occur sometime in the New Year. The consequence of Mr Justice Hamblen's Decision is that my civil liberty issue in England remains and is over 1 year now. I am not on any medication, nor have I ever been arrested or charged with a criminal offence. What the Judge is doing is protecting Respondents' solicitors from "contempt of court requests" and also Respondents from substantive prosecution. I have asked for the case to go to the Criminal Division in papers. The Appeal Court and Respondents' solicitors have a 4 page letter dated 2 December 2008 under which they have no illusion whatsoever of the seriousness of this case including the request for an article 6 hearing under the Human Rights Act 1998 : I am no criminal (and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in any event) but Respondents' solicitors/Counsel and Respondents, Judiciary and others are engaged in criminality which is readily apparent from the documentation before the courts and is in PLAIN ENGLISH.
I am moreover surprised to read the Daily Mail's "Exclusive" headline that "Minister [Lord Straw] tells the Mail how he'll reform 'villains' charter': Human Rights : Straw to Get Tough" by Benedict Brogan, Political Editor 8 December 2008.
I don't have a problem with that if he is going to amend article 6 of the HRA 1998 to include prosecution of a judge for complicity to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office by adding into this civil act, criminal law legislation OR even to bring into line the HRA 1998 with international legal thinking at this time - Berlin trip - (eg: on the disappearing worker problem on the Employment Workshop - I suggested a solution/idea could be direct access to an international court without exhausting the national/domestic court process).
However, if the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act 1998 are designed to cover up corruption sourcing from the Ministry of Justice and Legal Profession that is another issue : Lord Straw needs to take the point the HRA 1998 was "necessary" because of the "modern", "contemporary", "alternative", "liberalised" nature of the Woolf Reforms (Access to Justice Act 1999) which deliberately utilised the judiciary and legal profession via Statute to undermine the application of the rule of law and uniformly. Justice is fundamental to a democracy and we currently appear not to exist in one because of a few corrupt individuals playing "Nazism" in the Ministry of Justice: yes, there were two holocausts - Japanese and Jewish, I would hope that WWII is not ongoing - Justice needs to be restored. Perhaps tomorrows headline in the Mail should read "Access to Justice Act 1999" obsolete. ADR may exist in a democracy "outside" the judicial and legal profession ONLY and "competition" is a good a reason as any between "litigation" and "mediation". I for one do not need to live in a "Hidden Society" nor do I need to "save loss of face". I do, however, require "light" to shine into the darkest recesses of my court case and others who may be suffering regardless of the Christian ideology behind the "light" concept.
Also, just a thought in the Christian discipline the Judge was "Pontius Pilot". He was born in Edinburgh. Was Christ the Plaintiff or the Defendant. We hear about Christ as a party to the case, are the Jews also specifically named and, in which case, where is the Judgment located - Edinburgh, Italy, Jerusalem : technically there should also be two pleadings bundles as well as the Judgment which should have survived history. I would not like to think Christ is an after dinner speech by an Edinburgh Judge doing a European circuit and his analogous/metaphorical best case scenario.
One further point, given the impact of the Woolf Reforms - concerning my cases x 2 involving S J Berwin & others, Respondents appear to have missed the point of the reforms or are taking a methodology that they really intended concerning these reforms over that which was represented as being the essence of the Access to Justice Act 1999 per se to the legal and judical profession. I point out to you I have been in the courts on 3 litigations over 13 years now. My human Rights are completely abused. Any Jew: I would not even raise the Holocaust topic anymore (and you certainly do not have holocaust exclusivity conceptually) because my mind is thinking your elite killed their own people in WWII - S J Berwin & Co are a Jewish law firm which also had a human rights department that appears to be defunct. Furthermore, I have worked in many of the Jewish law firms in London and I know that Jewish people do not behave in the manner I have been treated via these court cases. You may find this post distasteful, but I find the last 13 years in the courts not acceptable either as a consequence of working in two top 20 London law firms one of which is a Jewish law firm and current source of disruption in my life: there was always the option to settle - Respondents' never took the option on a realistic basis, but why should they then, if they take the risk, know the risk, avoid or evade the consequences: misconduct in public office is a penalty which carries a life sentence FOR A REASON - do not let this current farce in politics be sidelined to a disciplinary issue - the REASON is DEMOCRACY.
I believe that this story is a farce and it is being manufactured, engineered by concerted and orchastrated practices so as to stop members of the Ministry of Justice and/or the Cabinet from being prosecuted for very very serious criminal offences against a democratic state:
"MPs continue to focus on arrest row
Justice questions in the Commons have been dominated by the Damian Green affair, and whether the offence of misconduct in public office should be a criminal or disciplinary matter." www.epolitix.com 10/12/08
As a criminal offence, I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, the penalty for misconduct in public office is life or 16 years.
The farce of the Speaker of the House not engaging in the formal process properly and the co-incidental (not) farce of the Police functioning without proper sanction or authority is just a wee bit too complicit for my liking: especially where my blog is concerned which is highlighting Professor Richard Susskind OBE as "doing" misconduct in public office. My blog also highlights that the "Access to Justice Act 1999" is misleading and that Lord Woolf has used a Japanese concept known as ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution / Mediation) sourcing from America via Jews, and my source is David Shapiro via S J Berwin & Co, and that I have been procedurally and substantively abused for 13 years across three litigations in the English legal system. My current case is ongoing, but on 27 November 2008 I received a "Permission Decision Refused" (Appeal Form 3) to hear my Appellant's Notice issued on or about 23 June 2008 before Mr Justice Hamblen. My court paperwork is crystal clear that I am experiencing corruption and abuse which has been onging for 13 years. Moreover it is not myself who is ducking the issues: I have now been proffered an "Oral Hearing" which I have requested occur sometime in the New Year. The consequence of Mr Justice Hamblen's Decision is that my civil liberty issue in England remains and is over 1 year now. I am not on any medication, nor have I ever been arrested or charged with a criminal offence. What the Judge is doing is protecting Respondents' solicitors from "contempt of court requests" and also Respondents from substantive prosecution. I have asked for the case to go to the Criminal Division in papers. The Appeal Court and Respondents' solicitors have a 4 page letter dated 2 December 2008 under which they have no illusion whatsoever of the seriousness of this case including the request for an article 6 hearing under the Human Rights Act 1998 : I am no criminal (and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in any event) but Respondents' solicitors/Counsel and Respondents, Judiciary and others are engaged in criminality which is readily apparent from the documentation before the courts and is in PLAIN ENGLISH.
I am moreover surprised to read the Daily Mail's "Exclusive" headline that "Minister [Lord Straw] tells the Mail how he'll reform 'villains' charter': Human Rights : Straw to Get Tough" by Benedict Brogan, Political Editor 8 December 2008.
I don't have a problem with that if he is going to amend article 6 of the HRA 1998 to include prosecution of a judge for complicity to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office by adding into this civil act, criminal law legislation OR even to bring into line the HRA 1998 with international legal thinking at this time - Berlin trip - (eg: on the disappearing worker problem on the Employment Workshop - I suggested a solution/idea could be direct access to an international court without exhausting the national/domestic court process).
However, if the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act 1998 are designed to cover up corruption sourcing from the Ministry of Justice and Legal Profession that is another issue : Lord Straw needs to take the point the HRA 1998 was "necessary" because of the "modern", "contemporary", "alternative", "liberalised" nature of the Woolf Reforms (Access to Justice Act 1999) which deliberately utilised the judiciary and legal profession via Statute to undermine the application of the rule of law and uniformly. Justice is fundamental to a democracy and we currently appear not to exist in one because of a few corrupt individuals playing "Nazism" in the Ministry of Justice: yes, there were two holocausts - Japanese and Jewish, I would hope that WWII is not ongoing - Justice needs to be restored. Perhaps tomorrows headline in the Mail should read "Access to Justice Act 1999" obsolete. ADR may exist in a democracy "outside" the judicial and legal profession ONLY and "competition" is a good a reason as any between "litigation" and "mediation". I for one do not need to live in a "Hidden Society" nor do I need to "save loss of face". I do, however, require "light" to shine into the darkest recesses of my court case and others who may be suffering regardless of the Christian ideology behind the "light" concept.
Also, just a thought in the Christian discipline the Judge was "Pontius Pilot". He was born in Edinburgh. Was Christ the Plaintiff or the Defendant. We hear about Christ as a party to the case, are the Jews also specifically named and, in which case, where is the Judgment located - Edinburgh, Italy, Jerusalem : technically there should also be two pleadings bundles as well as the Judgment which should have survived history. I would not like to think Christ is an after dinner speech by an Edinburgh Judge doing a European circuit and his analogous/metaphorical best case scenario.
One further point, given the impact of the Woolf Reforms - concerning my cases x 2 involving S J Berwin & others, Respondents appear to have missed the point of the reforms or are taking a methodology that they really intended concerning these reforms over that which was represented as being the essence of the Access to Justice Act 1999 per se to the legal and judical profession. I point out to you I have been in the courts on 3 litigations over 13 years now. My human Rights are completely abused. Any Jew: I would not even raise the Holocaust topic anymore (and you certainly do not have holocaust exclusivity conceptually) because my mind is thinking your elite killed their own people in WWII - S J Berwin & Co are a Jewish law firm which also had a human rights department that appears to be defunct. Furthermore, I have worked in many of the Jewish law firms in London and I know that Jewish people do not behave in the manner I have been treated via these court cases. You may find this post distasteful, but I find the last 13 years in the courts not acceptable either as a consequence of working in two top 20 London law firms one of which is a Jewish law firm and current source of disruption in my life: there was always the option to settle - Respondents' never took the option on a realistic basis, but why should they then, if they take the risk, know the risk, avoid or evade the consequences: misconduct in public office is a penalty which carries a life sentence FOR A REASON - do not let this current farce in politics be sidelined to a disciplinary issue - the REASON is DEMOCRACY.
posted by Lesley McDade at 11:02 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home