Problem Solving - Innovation - Creative Thinking

I heard on the radio at the weekend that Barak Obama, newly selected President of America is sending 4000 troops to Afghanistan as an outcome of the G20 Chile Summit.

Now this summit is an important one, and I read this morning that the trillions requested by the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown in conjunction with Barak Obama of America - it's not happening.

Therefore, it seems to me that the world problems are not going to be resolved by money.

I was thinking of Afghanistan and the UK and the problem is "drugs trafficking". I also bought a young member of my family an environmental book as a birthday gift.

Fields of poppy could be replaced by fields of biofuels. This would be attractive to the UK and America who are stretched concerning palm olive plantations as biofuel.

Therefore, to problem solve Afghanistan why not have a conference over in Afghanistan and invite the Tribal leaders to discuss a change in crop, provide crop management and assistance, soil assistance, and discuss an outcome of "switching" to attract infrastructure projects that the people of Afghanistan consider necessary. This would possibly provide a reciprocal and mutual benefit to global issues and release valuable resources to other more improved and beneficial requirements in society. Intelligence issues would mean a lessening of any threat levels and need for terrorist activities - axis of evil etc. Ie, if the poppies are not grown, there are no need for illegal distribution pathways, that releases policing agencies to other measures, it releases hospital and prisons and society from picking up the problems caused by drug trafficking. As you can see the chain reaction by discussing crops to something that the global world needs would mean legitimate distribution agreements, globalisation and environmental and societal concerns being raised, etc. For Afghanistan switching crop would enable them to gain employability through environmental participation attractive to international markets, that would therefore assist their infrastructure needs and make them attractive to international players. Just a packet of seeds could turn around global fortunes.

For all other G20 Chile Summit issues - look for non-financial solutions.

Also remember the little people - little projects and lots of them, keep suppliers cashflows ticking over - eventually things rectify themselves. Little roundabouts with conifers, lumps of stone and bulbs keep lots of suppliers in business as well as making those who use roads and motorways an aesthetic break every now and again. Benches near bus stops - support many!

The Divine Right

I know that the Divine Right is "Equality" "Fairness" "Impartiality" and "Justice". In Scotland the Monarch is "Equal" to the people and that is the historical premis for being given the position of Head of State.

However, that position has been usurped by the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999. There may therefore be a consistutional issue as there is now a two tier system of "access to justice" under these reforms and consequent to this Act. Having gone through the system 3 times and on my first journey to the House of Lords, I can confirm that I did not get "justice" at any stage, nor have I received it via the other two cases at all, other than Lord Justice Lindsay granting a right to a procedural hearing of my second case.

This causes concern - we all know in law that the "Tribunal" system is an "inferior" court to the "Royal Courts" and its divisions - I operate in the Queen's Bench Division. Because this layer of courts in society is "Royal" there has to be some significance and the issue of "equality before the law" fundamental and/or profound. The upper echelons of this court appear to be "Knighted", ie Sir - there are currently no senior female positions. Why then is the Woolsack vacant!

I suspect the reason is because of the legal mafia I am exposed to on these three cases and probably also others which I perceive operates out of the Ministry of Justice and thereby the Cabinet. I cannot get Justice, nor equality and fairness and I have recently had to question the impartiality of the judge by asking for a declaration which was not forthcoming.

The issue therefore is "real" that the Monarch may not actually have the right to stay on the throne - but that I would not take it off her in any event: I would however opt for a solution that the Royal House potentially changes upon death of the Monarch by "open competition" amongst all parties who can show lineage from a Royal House of the United Kingdom. I consider that would be fair and there must also be a reason historically why the Royal House changes from Plantagent, Tudor, Stuart, etc. Others may have other ideas.

The current debate in Parliament relates to the Act of Settlement 1701 and its discriminatory effect within the UK current to this day. [Click here] Act of Settlement 1701 (information)

To my mind, it is jurisprudentially correct to review all legislation on the statute book and bring it up-to-date on the premis of "codification" - a statute is, after all, only a political slice of time - which does go out of date and the law can only be progressed legally in the UK via the other route "case precedent" and the "ratio decidendi" via current judicial thinking (which means there needs to be a challenge in the judicial system). No court based challenge, means political stagnation - we do not need to be that medieval in the 21st Century!

Therefore it is more pertinent to look wider at this issue, than strictly as a Catholic discrimination and legislative injustice. The issue of the "Divine Rights" must be considered here in line with the "separation of the powers" : politics and democracy and monarchy - the Woolsack. Moreover, the issue also should come under current political policy and include Europe - social inclusion and equality and diversity policy making specific to "Monarchy".

The Queen's lineage is German/Danish and "Windsor" is actually "Saxe-Coburg" - Europe should be given the opportunity to therefore consider "Monarchy/Republic" issues - would Germany like their Queen back or is she really a Queen in exile?, for instance, or young William as a potential heir! or even to just consider the issue? Would France like to resurrect their royal houses or Ireland for that matter - in the 21st Century the Monarchs should not be excluded or unequal or not diversified - multiculturalism. However, it comes with a proviso - divine rights! They occur regardless of whether the monarch is Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim and if I read Pope John Paul II correctly we are all claiming descent from Abraham! and more importantly the universalism of Catholic teaching : it is not possible to eradicate good no matter how bad a person is! So we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet, chapter and verse!

EQUALITY, FAIRNESS,IMPARTIALITY, JUSTICE. In that regard, we are all born naked and equal per se. Also, to my mind, we are also all born with an inherent instinct concerning "injustice" which raises a presumption that we are all born programmed "good". Sometimes injustice can be brushed off, overlooked, but sometimes damage is too deep or profound in which case our "Democratic" right is to use the courts for which we are all given a birth right of "Access to Justice" as a civilised society which is safe and just - therefore the right to "Justice" to expect restoration of equality where it has been usurped in someway via "reason" and by those appointed intellectually in society to ensure it: some of the application of the rule of law nowadays could realistically be downgraded to a call centre rather than a court due to advances in technology ie, the law is merely re-affirmed rather than challenged (which requires "reason" and intellect in order to progress society by application of the rule of law to "ought" rather than prescriptive "is" via statute.

The secondary issue after Divine Rights is why did the Woolf Reforms remove "Justice" and do the opposite of that which they were claiming. To my mind the issue was treachery and probably also treason - R v Hennessy [1758] 1 BURR. The Woolsack is vacant for a reason.

To open the pandora's box of the Act of Settlement 1701 you should have to look at scope and width of the surrounding legislation ie Treason and the Access to Justice Act 1999, which has done the damage, to also encompass current policy areas and the EU - a Regulation would definitely have an impact as would a Directive concerning Europe and bringing monarchies/republics and democracy upto the required level intellectually - Divine Rights!. Moreover, meddling with the UK Monarchy should necessitate a look at Europe and ensuring all Monarchies are providing "equality" via the application of the rule of law - safe and just society and civilisation. The Commonwealth may also wish to consider their independence or otherwise in the 21st century setting. It might also be prudent to look at why the courts are "Royal" or "Tribunals" are not, and the issue of democracy and the Woolsack being empty - there has been much nonsense under New Labour and change management regimes - there may have been a purpose - I suspect if did not quite succeed or in line of expectations.

(A little story: at Birbeck in my first year I was lectured in Constitional and Public Administration Law by Costas Douzinas - a professor who was of Greek origin. He was discussing that England does not have a Bill of Rights - to which I put up my hand and informed that there is a Bill of Rights - it is "implied" by the legal system of Scotland that the English cannot meddle in religion, education or law!!! The Professor's statement to this young upstart was "you know an insult when you receive it" - how true).

The issues are therefore "WIDE":

1. Codification of laws specific to the Royal Houses of Windsor and all others who have rights to compete for the Throne of the "Kingdoms" of the United Kingdom". The right to "compete" upon the death of a monarch would be progressive possibly radical - but history records Royal House change for a reason. It's not a pertinent historically to be an heir (without challenge) in the UK - there are hats available to throw in the ring.
2 Europe - would Germany like their Royal House back? and/or the opportunity to have a monarchy of Europe resurrected or removed?
3 Commonwealth and Empire issues
4 Upgrading of Honours - "Honi soit qui mal y pense" is not my expectation of chivalry, Knights are expected "to do" GOOD deeds for public good, common good etc - they should "earn" a right to be Knighted by excellence in something "good"/"beneficial"/"value added": landing a helicoptor/plane is not "in league of expectation" in my perception in any way and I can also understand why some would turn down an honour which misses the mark of expectation - the Order of the Garter might be better consigned to the history books and replaced with something else associated with being "Knighted" for a good reason. The Order of Merit is for excellence in intellect/science etc. Therefore the Queen/Parliament might find beneficial an opportunity to look at the pomp and ceremony associated with the position of Head of State and make some pertinent and necessary changes.



[Click here] Honi soit qui mal y pense (information)

[Click here] Dieu et mon droit (information)

The Rose

On my LLB (Hons) Degree Certificate from the University of London, Birbeck College, there is a symbol:

A Shield with a blue background with a book open, below is a white background with a red cross and a "rose" upon which sits a crown.

I have just placed my LLB Degree Certificate into another bundle of papers before Master Leslie re his order informing it is a worthless piece of paper as is his Order (I am not complying with it) - and to wipe his arse on it.

The problem appears to be that the Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine of Lairg, was too engaged in his costly wallpaper and his pugin loo that over time the Woolsack became "pretty vacant".

The Vacant Woolsack is problematic concerning democracy because a Judge MUST have Executive Powers in Parliament. We are therefore not currently "democratic", not even modern or contemporary. The problem appears to be the concept of ADR (Mediation), at least from my perspective, and society became unbalanced via the Access to Justice Act 1999 - hence the Iraq War - hence the Vacant Woolsack, hence the banking crisis.

Moreover, my court case keeps experiencing procedural abuse - at 5 years on this third case is not even at discovery or witness statements - now S J Berwin & Co appear to have misrepresented to me the nature of my employment which was to be a "paralegal" and particularly on a £200 million misrepresentation action in the Official Referees Court utilising document imaging technology for which I also trained and supervised a team of four people - the case settled early. However, along comes David Shapiro, an American and the concept of ADR - to which I attended a Mock inhouse ADR seminar (videod) and utilised the information in my dissertation (on the Woolf Reforms) - albeit my feedback form informed that I had a crisis of conscience in regard to this concept - as I perceived it would undermine the rule of law: I also had in my mind the question why would you want to undermine the rule of law? - and in popped the answer : a war. Needless to say, my employment became increasingly difficult especially when my bosses had little or no clients and no client work - but one boss was being represented in Chambers Directory as a "leading individual and thorough" - not quite the case. He now claims amongst other things to be a "superchap" - really, I don't think so. Anyway, this particular boss had set up an Arbitration Club (which is "privatised" application of the rule of law) and David Shapiro linked up with mediation (which is privatised non application of the rule of law, ie hidden dispute settlement). A company called FICA or SICA operating out of Germany was created and my employability was appalling on or thereabouts. Because I had not too much work - albeit I did scoot down the corrider to the environmental law department from time to time - a treat - I was seconded to the global Guinness/Grandmet merger all £24 billion (now Diageo plc) of it for a year and was relatively happy - I then had to return to department and to the familiar issues which had not gone away - no client work and NJC's holiday notes are a hoot (absolutely no work - and you need a holiday!). I then managed to get work via the Advocacy Unit - something my bosses claimed I could not do - but I had no problems doing the work on the Sandline Arbitration - re the mercenary Tim Spicer and others. However, I cannot help deduce that S J Berwin & Co appear to me to be a veritable pot of subersiveness and I speculate : (1) I was sacked by Professor Richard Susskind OBE from Masons a specialist IT law firm (albeit Partners have computer ornaments on their desks which they have not a scooby how to operate them (but manage to bring computer related allegations as well as Cathy's got a loud voice (so what) - Molyneux/Cross/Cathy James - knowingly incompetent) leading to my dismissal [Displacency issue]. Susskind is or becomes IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and is busy piddling about in the judiciary and Law Society reforms and especially involved in creating an IT specialism to the Construction Law specialism of the Official Referees Court. How did Winward Fearon (small firm) and Julian Critchlow get that £200 m misrep action in the OR's court, pick me up along the way: and both of us end up at S J Berwin & Co (headhunted) - when the case settles early Julian thereafter has no clients (not really ready for the big league then)!!!! - oh and Richard Susskind's colleague Neil Cameron oversees a report by myself and another re DIP systems (and our case settled early - hmmm - was I suing Susskind at that point and whipped his arse in court - it was worth seeing him slide/slouch under the table though- don't recall he took the oath: even although the judge was already corrupted). Is that a material link to the corruption I am experiencing? or is law just a little village? At SJB, link Julian Critchlow: Arbitration to David Shapiro: ADR and his profile is unbelievable - American Nazi Party case, Watergate too and Clinton - there's a surprise. And then a year or so later, add to the mixture a mercenary as a client [eventually bankrolled as a "private" army by America-Bush!!] What is a girl to think (speculate) that S J Berwin & Co are engaged in warmongering - why are all 3 of my very small piddly personal litigations bogged down by procedural nonsense aka everyone "omitting to act" in order to ensure the judge does not see anything of relevance like CAUSE and CAUSATION for instance, the substance/substantive. Well I am entitled to deduce something and even speculate a bit - but also add into the mixture a dissertation on the Woolf Reforms via academia (Birbeck/UCL) and its a hotchpotch - Susskind/Woolf/Shapiro/Critchlow/Farmer/Lacey/Head of Birbeck, Baroness Blackstone in the Cabinet no less - Straw - how did Straw get the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice - which requires a Judge with executive powers not vice versa - why will no police officer deal with the criminality occurring on my current litigation - I have emailed them, I have asked the Judge to pass the papers to them orally, I have set it out very very very nicely in pleadings: perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office : but that is the icing on the cake - I do appear to also being listened into - which I perceive to be (a) intellectual espionage - because I am worth it - I'm the goldmine, not the gold digger and (b) they may even like me a little bit sometimes, or its intimidation and harrassment. I also keep getting told to drop the case - why? However, preparing the case to go back before Master Leslie a day or so ago, I dropped the big one - "the Rose" : I was musing : the English flag should be scarlet red with a white cross and a rose: why have they not changed managed the Flag! - Molyneux (Masons case) stated "there is blood all over the walls" quite!. Then I decided I would put in the bundle the return of my LLB degree and I noticed the Shield on the top - and then I started to think - I may possibly be a descendent of a Royal line of Scotland via King John Balioll's daughter Ellen marrying a Jermy Knight + the table in my dissertation is "pure original thought" - now the thing with a rose is that it is asymetrical, as is the table in my dissertation - "a Rose" - the English & Welsh legal system.

ANNEX 1 - Access to Justice Table re Woolf (worth downloading)

Impression, suggestion, hypothesis, heresay, speculation, musing - well why not: Brown has not exactly got to grips with the banking problem - don't print any money; don't allow organisations to borrow to pay bonuses and stop the fat cat contracts as an unfair contract term - you would not be trying "by omission" to create a war!

Level Playing Field

As you are aware I was before Master Leslie of the Royal Courts of London on 6 June 2008 - the outcome was not favorable, in fact as stated below on blog posts, it occasioned complicity with Respondents' solicitor Alison (nosy) Parker of Beachcrofts LLP. Subsequently a request for an appeal and judicial review before Mr Justice Hamblen on 27 November 2008 was refused thereby adding to the corruption which was abundently apparent in papers to date and which also notified of the corruption attributable to Master Leslie and Respondents' solicitor Alison Parker on 6 June. The matter thereafter went before Mr Justice Mackay of Court 37 on 11 February 2009 and only an "oral hearing" inter partes (Paula Jefferson and another) was permitted to note take. I turned up at the Press Office to seek assistance from a journalist to note take, who referred me to the in court support service and a very nice BVC student took notes (to which I also note took the Decision read on the day). The outcome is the case is effectively closed down unless I comply with Master Leslie's Order - but that is the problem. I cannot ever comply with Master Leslie's order as it is fundamentally unjust to which he has also added criminal activities of misconduct in public office and perversion of the course of justice including complicity with Respondents' solicitor Alison Parker and her actions to pervert the course of justice by influencing the Official Solicitor for England & Wales by her only accessing Mr Parker's previous solicitors Hodge Jones Allen as a source of public funding BUT not the Legal Aid Fund or anyone on the LCS list (I think its called - to whom I had already approached to secure assistance; none forthcoming). The Official Solicitor asked me to walk away with each party bearing their own costs - I refused. All of this paperwork was before Mr Justice Hamblen and also before Mr Justice Mackay together with oral arguments on the day and at least half a dozen criminal offences were stated to Mr Justice Mackay which he completely failed to deal with. As you are aware from my blog I am completely capable of stating what is mens rea, actus reus and offence and any inchoate derivatives of them.

What is occurring is that Master Leslie wants me to produce a further round of medical reports to which I refuse because (a) I am not a patient and I have an NHS letter stating the same, as produced to him; (b) he already has medical reports and another round is not necessary at this juncture in the case. Moreover, the problem is because Master Leslie wants me to have "protected party" status under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but I am not legally entitled to that status because I am not a patient. Respondents' solicitors refuse to accept an NHS letter stating I am not a patient. Master Leslie refuses to process Respondents' solicitors for contempt of court as requested for causing a civil liberty issue of over 1 year (Paula Jefferson) and for evesdropping as entrapped in paperwork (Alison Parker and others). A further NHS letter from a "Clinical" Director has been provided and Master Leslie refuses to accept this as sufficient but insists on protected party status to which I cannot comply. Moreover, the Official Solicitor acting complicitly with Respondents' solicitors occasioned a further round of medical reports which the Master appears to fail to appreciate: but on substance neither do I - a sign of neglect is a button missing! The nonsense is apparent and out of control.

As stated in papers, as an English woman by birth NO right thinking English person would accept protected party status under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where they are NOT A PATIENT.

The contents of the paperwork also secured the statement by Mr Justice Mackay I am "highly intelligent" - does not quite afford an incapacity measure then Mr Justice Hamblen and Mr Justice Mackay. Moreover, I hold down several jobs too, write this blog, do Consultation Papers for fun, etc etc. I have requested the taped transcript and ensured the recording equipment was switched on, aka premediated conduct by Master Leslie of switching it off and only asking for a record from Ms Parker but not myself, to which he avers it is accurate - but I did ask for a declaration of impartiality and provided the reason for it [Richard Susskind] and that little piece of signed and date stamped nonsense "no real prospect of success" Master Leslie produced should also be referred in it - especially as it was subsequently contained in paperwork before Mr Justice Hamblin and Mr Justice Mackay - what are you all covering up Lord Straw!

Unfortunately, I am unable to vacate the case which is substantively criminal. I have asked the Police to deal and been bizarrely passed to the IPCC. Having telephoned the IPCC they refuse to deal, they do not know who the Attorney General is [googled The Rt Hon Baroness Scotland QC apparently], and upon asking for a lapel badge number eventually had to demand it before it was forthcoming. Mr Justice Mackay did say after his decision I could appeal as another option : which I did hence the delay in posting to blog and I now have returned to me a HMCS letter of 5 March 2009 - s54(4) Access to Justice Act 1999 CPR 52.3(3) and (4) with only 1 pleading file but there were 2 files + 1 file of evidence + 1 unbound bundle of papers before Mr Justice Mackay who was asked to pass the paperwork to the Police - so why haven't you.

The nonsense continues ... we shall see the outcome of activities in a few weeks.