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!
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!
posted by Lesley McDade at 12:37 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home