Legislative reversal - the Jacobites are still on the Statute Books

An interesting article in "The Scotsman" about reversal of historic injustices via the legislature :

The Scotsman 13 July 2009 : "Ye-Jacobites by name lend an ear... age old slur could be a thing of the past" By Tristan Stewart-Robertson (click here)

How many more Statutes are wholly or partly out of date on the premis of being obsolete, requiring amendment, or just plain codified to the 21st Century. I suppose the outcome of the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland in 1745 is well over due.


Act of Settlement anyone ...


Next!!!


Feng Shui the legal system (declutter, mend, aesethetic and move around the Chi to the 21st Century, discard, add something new, reflect, minimalise, reduce - "less is more" no need for compromise in the judiciary or legislature or legal profession!

For example: property law is comprised several statutes - take tenements the solum is jointly owned per block of flats which co-joins other blocks thereby surrounding a collective community of privately owned land. Remove any references to feudalism, ground rents, and take the land out of the block ownership of solum into (a) "residents" of the flats who may be owners or tenants and (b) create one big private garden scoped for multiple uses - children play zone, allotment, tennis court, conservatory/cinema/scrabble-domino/glossies plus coffee morning/clubs - ornithology / philately / arts n' crafts etc and BBQ + shed accessible by all and which could also facilitate low level employment re ground maintenance, child care, elderly care etc thereby realising the community spirit and any issues of isolation and inequality via exclusion, networking, etc. All that needs is the barriers to come down and the land to be owned collectively for "private" land purposes as a garden for the whole zone of the surrounding tenement blocks for "residents", not based on ownership. Some of the tenement backgreens collectively are over or just under an acre of land, highly undeveloped, rarely used and it is possible to be surrounded on all sides of a cultivated area by weeds - albeit the biodiversity includes mature trees, ph-neutral soil to the 18th/19th century or earlier/later, may include rare plant species or none at all, a squirrel. As Ken Livingston said on the Chelsea Flower show - an Oak tree attracts 250 species : there is potentially in excess of 500-1000 homes surrounding tenement private garden space : wholly undervalued and underdeveloped as a city based open green space. The statute legislation - where is it at currently, where should it be politically, what should it being doing for the community and common good thereof in a 21st century sense - we do not need 19th century land rights or values in the 21st century : it is possible to progress society! Legally it is not as simple as just taking down internal boundary walls ...

NOT PROGRESS UPDATE

Master Leslie of the Royal Courts of Justice, London has been repeatedly asked to remove himself from my court case in England because of his lack of impartiality, his complicity with Respondents' solicitors and his involvement in organised crime and corruption therein to include perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. He is moreover notified I am experiencing harrassment and intimidation which is escoteric in nature and it is perceived that as a judge he is actively engaged in the activities due to a serious conflict of interest on the case specific to Geoffrey Robertson QC - Doughty Street Chambers and a Mr Michael Ford, Old Square Chambers/ex-academia at Birbeck (somebody moved the employment law exam date without notifying the students! for a reason yet to be established or was it just myself was not notified! or he stalks his students/clients, etc). I did notify the Bar Council by complaint that Mr Ford was stalking with others involved (1997) and he appears to be continuing to do that having evaded and avoided issues, ie economically lying by the appearance of being truthful: it may also be for intellectual espionage or just cowardice: as he was my witness and failed to attend, but bizarrely notified (a) respondents go first and (b) the case will be dealt with from the point of transfer - on Friday before Monday court: 9 pages of pleadings were overruled so as to focus on transfer by the judge in alignment with Respondents' pleading and evidential bundles - but how did he know this and how did I know it was going to be affirmed Monday morning, etc. Unfortunately, he and others appear in with the woodwork at the moment. I have on many occasions notified the Police, who normally fail to deal, albeit it is perceived the Police may be complicit if not making their own enquiries and further enquiries have been requested viz-a-viz (in relation to/concerning) Master Leslie's current letter refusing to remove himself from the case. Who knows where Mr Ford is and what his itinerary is ... according to Respondents' Counsel, Bruce Carr of Devereux Chambers on my first court action against Masons and Professor Richard Susskind OBE, he did - but Geoffrey Robertson QC who also had a Bar Complaint subsequent to my complaint relating to Mr Ford, whilst at Doughty Street Chambers to deliver up itinerary data - failed to do so SO invasion of privacy by barristers is not a human rights issue then - really. Alison "Nosy" Parker is entrapped in the current case paperwork with resultant contempt of court request, Paula Jefferson who is now dealing refuses to engage to explain the apparent conflict of interest issue via her Counsel, Tim Pullen using his Godolphin Chambers address on papers but actually associated with Doughty Street Chambers - should I make another Bar Council complaint to supplement the two SRA complaints re the lawyers who both have requests to be dealt with as contempt of court (my being nice of course)/ rather than perversion of the course of justice and obstruction. Nice no longer. Mr Tim Pullen's conflict of interest has resulted in a serious invasion of my privacy and others: but no-one appears to want to deal with it or be responsible. Why would Master Leslie consider he still has conduct of the case - he is of unsound mind/ill - which requires political democratic process - I have asked my MP to establish the legality / history of removing a judge from the Bench via democratic process - still waiting for the response!! Time of the essence - perhaps a court date after August judicial holiday break might be appropriate - in the meantime : can everyone establish the itinerary of the following:

Mr Michael Ford and a female unknown
Mr Edward Johnson (lawyer - last known Hammond Suddards) same female unknown above
Mr Khaled (Colin) Nasir (lawyer own law firm)
Dr Lindsay Farmer
Dr Matthew Weate
Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC
Ms Alison "NOSY" Parker
Ms Paula Jefferson and anyone from Beachcrofts LLP
Mr Julian Critchlow - Nightmare corporate psychopath - leading individual and thorough but NO CLIENTS * so you moved to PFI - why?
Mr Nicholas Carnell - Worst Nightmare corporate psychopath - holiday lists with no active clientwork * so I worked on £18m Arbitration Sandline via SJB Advocacy Dept: £24b global merger Diaegeo plc via EC Law Dept and seconded to client, and environment department because I was incompetent NOT.
Ms Anne Molyneux - cannot switch on a computer but brings computer related allegations in a specialist computer law firm - doesn't comply with company policy substantively in confidential memo below referred - "blood all over the walls" statement to tea lady - why is that ANNE!
Ms Cathy James - leaves confidential memo in "public" network directory because (a) she is known to be incompetent and (b) is not complying with company policy either AND she has got a loud voice! How loud is loud?
Professor Richard Susskind OBE - pratt, who expects everyone else to be a pratt as well - universal application of your notion of "acting in the best interests ... of YOU, Mason's Equity, Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross and Cathy James" but NOT me. Oh and I competently did have confidential directories as per company policy having been on the same training course as Ms James on the same day at the same time and I was the most advanced in using the computer in department including Scott Schedules!, did actually DO the work in the Department, willingly assisted others, but I get sacrificed and organised crime and corruption for 13 years now - I AM NOT CAUSE THEN. LARGE cheque would be nice! I am not the fraud : OR Crime Record Number!! would be good too.
CID Davis is out there in the ether: hopefully his excuse is not he is undercover! for 10 + years.
Now where is the Scottish Secretary these days ... Prime Minister ... Blair's ... Prince Charles ... CSI ... Law n Order.

Please ensure that Mr Michael Ford's itinerary is monitored and if located in Edinburgh that it would be advantagous to let the Edinburgh Police know his whereabouts or Social Work!

Then there is the problem of a few others closer to home : they are inherently societal problems anyway, but somehow they have become my problems partly as a consequence of notifying the judge of my inability to be processed for "incapacity" under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: as NO RIGHT THINKING ENGLISH WOMAN WOULD ACCEPT "PROTECTED PARTY STATUS" UNDER A MENTAL CAPACITY ACT WHEN NOT A PATIENT ... if anyone is to get a jurisprudential hiding it is not me Master Leslie. ORGANISED CRIME ACT OR TERRORISM ACT OR ESPIONAGE OFFICIAL SECRETS (WHICH I AM NOT) MAY BE A REASON FOR "PROTECTED PARTY" STATUS IN LAW - BUT NEVER MENTAL HEALTH. I doubt anyone needs protected party status from my intellect! Literacy as well as professionalism and competency appears at issue: you are supposed to be educated AND trained. I am deemed by Ms Manley Chairperson to have the ability of a practising solicitor - only I have not done the CPE or Bar Exams - bizarre that - you should at least be at my level given papers in your control!

The alternative is that I notify the Police of my whereabouts in conjunction to their whereabouts at all times perhaps via Satelite Tracking or even google street might assist ... so that the Police can ensure covert surveillance of Respondents' solicitors, Counsel, and Respondents and others : the case is known as the "shit" case for a reason ... the inability of the judge to be literate and reason on sound premis wasn't what I had envisaged - Respondents, Solicitors and Counsel : well they are trying to not progress a simple personal injury case for a reason - is that because of organised crime and corruption, solicitors might lose their practising certificate or the cheque's TOO LARGE. CAUSE THEN EFFECT!!! Was there a really serious problem with my contract ..., S J Berwin's defunct employment law department and human rights department and a clean desk policy in HR! - if they can't see anything on their desk it is not happening ... corporate psychopaths that is ...

The Homecoming Gathering is occurring 25/26 July in Edinburgh - Holyrood Park to the Edinburgh Castle esplanade via procession and pageant. The Clan tents are in Holyrood Park and I will pop by the Clan Davidson tent, possibly also Clan Chatten and if I can find Balliol ...

I am also attending the Clan Davidson dinner - anticipating meeting some folks at the Homecoming Gathering - not anticipating Susskind, Farmer, Ford, Leslie, Weate, Molyneux, Cross, James, Robertson, and others - the Clan Motto and my name means "Sapienter si Sincere" : WISELY if sincerely - this lot don't intellectually measure up! Plus the Woolsack still looks "pretty vacant" - politicians are not supposed to have executive powers in the judiciary : judges are supposed to have executive powers in the Cabinet. Happily standing in "virtually"! if you insist on putting information in the public directory of the Justice system.

Ms Jefferson's response is awaited to the civil liberty issue she created in November 2007 - (a) removal of herself and others and Beachcrofts LLP from conduct of the case due to organised crime, corruption and judicial complicity, (b) a large cheque and settlement she is supposed to be "Insurers' solicitors acting for Respondents" OR (c) due process via another judge who is "intelligent" plus prosecution of all that has gone before substantively and via Parliament. It might be historical but we either have a democracy or we don't and we have something else unknown OR there are more than one version of democracy and we need to know which one we are engaged in ...?

Justice is Punishment OR Justice is Equality AND the OUTCOME is Punishment

Listening to the radio this morning - and I haven't listened in for a while, the statement "Justice is Punishment" was represented - to which I immediately reacted, no it is not.

Justice is Equality the outcome is (a) fine, community sentence or prison; (b) award of damages, compensation and compound interest.

This is a significant shift - the "symbol" of Justice as represented universally and embodied in the Statue by William Pomeroy in UK society (is located on top of the Old Bailey) is significant : "she" may or may not be "blindfolded", she holds a "sword" and she holds the "scales".

The scales represent equality : therefore Justice is EQUALITY, the measure is BALANCE - but the balance is the ability of the judge to "reason" called the "ratio decidendi" and this is applied "universally" via "LITIGATION" the public domain of the application of the rule of law or possibly arbitration (private). When the parties ARE equal before the law, then the balance occurs, that which was an injustice is rectified by application of the rule of law, which is done through "reason" and the enforcement of reason. The enforcement of reason is what makes society "safe and just". The standard is set in reason and the Judge ultimately has responsibility for the standards in society or not. Judges are not infallible, they are human and mistakes do occur, but we have an appeals process to deal with this and it should be RARELY used. You can usually only appeal on a POINT OF LAW but sometimes FACT/EVIDENCE can cause an appeal where it is so necessary to a case that it requires to surface as it rights a wrong.

The cases go up the system ONLY on appeal on a POINT OF LAW (except mine which went up the system on a perversion of the course of justice because there was an ommittance to state the point of law)! So, from the inferior court of first instance, they go to the Court of Appeal, then to the House of Lords and it is possible to place into the Court of Appeal and House of Lords stages a preliminary reference to the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) (art 234 the last time I looked at a European Treaty). The preliminary reference does not mean the case goes to the ECJ, what happens is that a Question(s) is referred to the ECJ and the response comes back and is located in the national/domestic court judgment, thereby enabling European law to enter the UK through REASON. At the Court of Appeal stage it is a process at the "discretion" of the judge (in my first case the Judge, LJ Peter Gibson, used Martin v Glinware Distribution [1983] to block the request, to which I argued Article 6 - (the loyalty clause). At the House of Lords stage, and the case is likely to have been procedurally removed from this pathway due to the Woolf Reforms with no leave to appeal, a request to the ECJ is AUTOMATIC. (In my case a 100 year old case Lane v Esdaile was used to block access to the House of Lords, BUT unfortunately the Woolf Reforms had impacted "Access to Justice", I therefore argued Lane v Esdaile is obsolete : Prayers were said TWICE - Bishop of Derby and then the Bishop of Birmingham - however, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough; Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Hope of Craighead declined to hear the case : the later two were known to lack impartiality and Hope was a shocker given his representations on Glasgow University's website at the time. Prayers are only said at the House of Lords stage).

It is therefore very important that when entering the litigation process that you ensure that your evidence is in - in the first round, as it is unlikely that you will be able to appeal on an evidential point. You must appeal on a point of law - because you must engage the judge to REASON, as it is the ratio decidendi that says that the Statute law is challenged or the common law of already judge made reasoning is challenged, case precedent can occur 100's of years earlier and never be progressed until your case occurs. Statute law can go out of date - it is a political slice of time and may not be relevant in the 21st century but remain live on the statute books unless a codification exercise occurs. There is a material difference between a case that "challenges" statute or common law and a case that "reiterates" the statute and common law! The cases that "challenge" MUST occur as society needs to progress and the application of the rule of law must update to the 21st Century. The cases that challenge therefore relate specifically to our ability to be DEMOCRATIC. In the 21st Century, computerisation and IT should speed up this process, ensure uniformity in outcome ie like for like, assist paperlessness and environmental concerns, archiving and history.

Concerning the process - we are all hearing about E-DISCOVERY and that is documentation which is evidential that is scanned into a computer and codified objectively and objectively by parties to the litigation. Costs have come down somewhat from when I was using this technology, but it is still expensive and believe it or not - not actually necessary. What is necessary is that you place your documents into a bundle in "chronological" order and then pagineate them - numbering each page from 1 to ?. Once this is done you need to schedule up the list of documents to include the name of the document who it is from to or relevance and if possible the date and the pagineated number - so roughly 4-5 columns of data. The reason why e-discovery is not necessary is because the judge SHOULD be looking for CAUSE - which should normally be located in the earliest part of the documentation in the dispute. The remainder of your evidence is EFFECT what has happened as a consequence of the dispute and this material is relevant to the outcome of the dispute, ie compensation, damages, compound interest and it can be "Contributory" and/or it can go a measure to sentencing, fine, community service, prison. Also with E-discovery "evidential safeguards cannot be measured", it is possible to electronically falsify documentation - things like creases in papers, staples, paperclipped attachments, cannot be authenticated to the same degree as the original document - there must be care used when using e-discovery. However, alteration in order to falsify would occur usually prior to scanning, because once scanned, it has a unique electronic number in chronological order, and if printed out, prints out exactly what was scanned in. E-discovery is a useful TOOL especially in large cases of the 240 lever arch size! as you can objectively codify and subjectively codify information, ie if preparing a witness statement for person X, you can locate quickly all documentation relevant to X on a particular or specific issue - the danger is you can get too much information OR as I did experience - the search creates relevant information in 5 minutes and it takes 2 days to print it off! The other useful features in E-discovery is (a) the ability to link up with other parties on the case electronically re information and (b) OCR / ICR / Fuzzy search facilities are extremely useful to locate specific information - Optical character recognition / Intelligent Character recognition / searching where you know only part of a word or which may be mispelled or have several derivations.

Where Justice IS EQUALITY is CAUSE and cause has to be established first before effect, albeit there is a concept known as METALEPSIS which the Greeks were aware of where instead of circumstances to consequences there is a reversal consequences to circumstances - as in my cases and this blog.

Now we all can do street justice - but what we really want is society to be safe and just and that requires "intelligence" which means Judges MUST reason. When judges reason it means society progresses because law becomes up-to-date by making law obsolete, or amending it, or "discovering" what the law ought to be - judges do not CREATE law, LAW is DISCOVERED" by reason. They may not therefore omit to apply the rule of law; apply the rule of law when it does not apply as there are serious JUDICIAL consequences and I am currently arguing for a Judge to be brought before Parliament to remove him from the Bench which I believe is the correct democratic process when a judge is unable to "reason" and is not reasoning on a sound premis or is ill. I am awaiting my MP to clarify the position : given I have been in the courts for 13 years with a pattern establishing of "failure to apply the rule of law by ommittance to act". Or to be prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice and misconduct in public office - it is never necessary to process deliberate judicial misconduct as a human rights issue under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - if a judge deliberately maladministers the case procedurally or substantively at trial then the issue is criminal, not civil. The Human Rights lawyers are engaged in building "an Ivory Tower" which serves no one other than to make human rights lawyers wealthy: it certainly does not alleviate injustice.

Furthermore: people use the words "injustice" / "inequality" but do they actually realise that there is a significant difference from experiencing inequality from being unequal in society. Inequality is something you do to yourself via your own subjectivity. Unequal is something that others do to you via there and others subjectivity - when the evidence is before the courts - in chronological lists - with the doctrine of equity "the earliest in time prevails", then why a person is in the courts for in excess of 13 years on 3 cases ... The judicial system case management system operates on a fortnightly premis!!! And yes the courts are busy - but not that busy! Injustice is therefore relevant to "unequal". Inequality would mean that you did not issue the writ per se!

The sword is the fight, the scales the shield - of society by reason : the blindfold possibly relates to escotericism - you must come to the courts with a clear conscience - this issue is not necessary as the judge has an evidential bundle and chronological list from BOTH parties - it is quickly establishable what is missing or not necessary in the bundles - an issue of deduction. Jurisprudence is the science and theory of human law -the evidential bundles establishes "science", ie if you are on this side of the street, you were not on the other side of the street: you cannot be on two sides of the street at the same TIME. Therefore the philosophy is not necessary or at all: especially relevant to CAUSE is science! (In my first case, I provided two lever arch bundles of evidence with chronological list - Respondents' Counsel argued that I had too much evidence and showed his 1 lever arch bundle of "yellow" paper in contrast to my white paper. The judge overruled my pleading 9 pages out of 11 to focus on the last two pages EFFECT, not CAUSE which was not to be seen. I was too inexperienced at that time in litigation to state that observationally Respondents' Counsel's case was a lever arch bundle SHORT - cause was missing: but it was not something that I had not noticed in any event - how did I have 2 lever arch files in any event! It should not have been lost on the judge unless complicit! Which is serious at the Court of Appeal when the missing evidence, resulted in a missing point of law on appeal as well! (Laughingly: I was at that time employed on a £200m 240 lever arch case of which I was responsible for 85 lever arch files in the THIRD YEAR of my LLB degree on a charge out rate of £80 per hour as a "paralegal" (Respondents' Counsel was attempting to say to the judge my case at 2 lever arch files was HUGE!!!!). By the FOURTH YEAR of my LLB degree I was working on a £24 billion global merger on a charge out of £120 per hour on a 3000 lever arch file case with responsibility for 400 lever arch files!!!!!). Where in England was any student working at this level, I doubt even Oxford or Cambridge student! My damages are serious!

The other issue on the radio this morning is the Queen has asked for a pay increase of approx £6.5 million. The Gender Equality has reared its head in society and the Queen asking for her pay increase should send a necessary signal to all women to ask for theirs where there is an issue!