A "Quiet Revolution" aka Tony, Dick and Henry
Straw defends 'constitutional revolution'
Jack Straw has defended the constitutional reforms implemented by Labour, saying they amount to a "quiet revolution". Epolitix.com 29/09/09
A “quiet revolution” - you may ask 'how' quiet is quiet; (or how loud is the loud voice of Cathy James - "cause" in my case) the one that there is an invasion but no gun in your face so to speak. I would call that “quiet revolution” organised crime and corruption with a tad of treason thrown in – R v Hennessy [1758] 1 BURR. So my blog is not a misrepresentation, or a mistake, or a malicious falsehood, or a slander, libel or even defamation: hence no writ so far. You would not want everyone to know that if you use ADR/IDS/Mediation that those in the know, know that there is something unknown that ought to be known potentially being covered up and hidden so as not to know you know you know … : it’s a Japanese concept being promulgated in the UK – (that includes Scotland) and Europe by American Jews and some Scots via Clinton – but you would rather they walked into the UK as friendly aliens than rely on the academic – against all the odds - achievements of moi – why did you give me an LLB “Hons”! it would not be so that there has been a 13 year supply of toilet paper to compliment that Pugin Loo! My case is known as "the shit case". Well, perhaps the Police will now do as I ask of them arrest, charge and prosecute (a) misconduct in public office – no need for new law and (b) perversion of the course of justice and (c) treason and a mixed bag of other issues if you want to throw the legal tomes at someone(people)! Lord Straw is a politician with executive powers in the judiciary - the Woolf Report occurred from the Despatch box, not the Woolsack - Constitutional Reforms - the Monarch no longer has the right to the Throne! Competition anyone. Ex-EU Commissioner Romano Prodi came over to the UK to request a separation of the powers and it did not happen so we ended up with Lord Straw!
How about …. Tony … Dick … and … Henry, for instance.
Jack Straw has defended the constitutional reforms implemented by Labour, saying they amount to a "quiet revolution". Epolitix.com 29/09/09
A “quiet revolution” - you may ask 'how' quiet is quiet; (or how loud is the loud voice of Cathy James - "cause" in my case) the one that there is an invasion but no gun in your face so to speak. I would call that “quiet revolution” organised crime and corruption with a tad of treason thrown in – R v Hennessy [1758] 1 BURR. So my blog is not a misrepresentation, or a mistake, or a malicious falsehood, or a slander, libel or even defamation: hence no writ so far. You would not want everyone to know that if you use ADR/IDS/Mediation that those in the know, know that there is something unknown that ought to be known potentially being covered up and hidden so as not to know you know you know … : it’s a Japanese concept being promulgated in the UK – (that includes Scotland) and Europe by American Jews and some Scots via Clinton – but you would rather they walked into the UK as friendly aliens than rely on the academic – against all the odds - achievements of moi – why did you give me an LLB “Hons”! it would not be so that there has been a 13 year supply of toilet paper to compliment that Pugin Loo! My case is known as "the shit case". Well, perhaps the Police will now do as I ask of them arrest, charge and prosecute (a) misconduct in public office – no need for new law and (b) perversion of the course of justice and (c) treason and a mixed bag of other issues if you want to throw the legal tomes at someone(people)! Lord Straw is a politician with executive powers in the judiciary - the Woolf Report occurred from the Despatch box, not the Woolsack - Constitutional Reforms - the Monarch no longer has the right to the Throne! Competition anyone. Ex-EU Commissioner Romano Prodi came over to the UK to request a separation of the powers and it did not happen so we ended up with Lord Straw!
How about …. Tony … Dick … and … Henry, for instance.
Ex-PM Tony Blair ... Richard Susskind OBE "Professor DisOBEdient" ... Lord Henry Woolf
That Japanese concept being peddled by the American Jews via the Scottish Judiciary (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) under Clinton establishment just sort of wrecked my legal career but you could have settled … Woolf did not manage to alter CPR Rule 1 and custom, tradition and practice in the UK means that we should still have “equality before the law” so why would a party to a litigation or arbitration need article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Ivory Tower”) when you can arrest, charge and prosecute for (a) perversion of the course of justice; and/or (b) misconduct in public office too - I believe it is a 16 year or thereabouts sentence.
Everyone is supposed to sing from the same hymn sheet – chapter and verse "Equality before the law" but you could tell us what we have been changed regime managed into - Socrates did drink HEMLOCK for a reason because we don't know we don't know! : (a) Monarchy gets to sit on the UK Thrones – custom, practice and tradition enables the people to be equal to the Monarch and vice versa (safe and just society); (b) Democracy enables the state to create a system of "is" law based on "reasonable, reasonable, reasonable" standards (safe and just society) – we would really like to know what that is right now; (c) Oligarchy – the closed society of the 'seen' to be independent judiciary who are not complicit with any party let alone Respondents solicitors/barristers and who are not supposed to be located in the apartment below, above, next door or a couple of apartments down – invasion of privacy is aiding and abetting a perversion of the course of justice via HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION - I technically should not know the spooks! – as judges you have “Chronological Lists" attached to the "pleadings" and "evidence" bundles + "cause" in the lower part and + "effect" in the latter part (damages), with discovery, witness statements and cross-examination to follow as procedural rules – that is because the rule of law is DISCOVERED and then applied and never CREATED, the case is located WITH the point of law(s) in the Judgment ONLY as rule of law applied – you do not get to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff for bringing a Writ on the premis of "equality before the law", unless that is, you want to squirm and run the risk of being caught red-handed in the organised crime and corruption till, which would not be asinine for pointing it out via complaints and asking the Police to deal, something a Commander of Police appears to not appreciate: the Police DO have a duty and authority to catch CRIMINALS and SUSPECTED CRIMINALS, it would also be especially useful if they will locate the statutory or common law references when prohibited too, when claiming they do not have any duty or authority to ACT (ie do something) ... – you would not want to establish or be seen to establish or engaged in a pattern of conduct on the premis of an “omission to act” where there is a duty and/or authority to act – you would not want to be seen to be aiding and abetting a criminal offence – does create a safe and just society make any sense these days - the lawyers are the lemmings jumping off the cliff - they appear to have an inability to (a) see the problem; (b) know what to do about it; (c) would rather lose their lifestyle and not even eat - if Legal Week.com can be believed.
Its gone past the point where Respondents on my cases could actually settle via CPR Rule 1 without running the risk of arrest, charge and prosecution in any event (I have lost count of how many requests, and in writing, have been made to those with authority and duty TO ACT). At a later date should the police really really really want to deal with that 13 now 14 year “omission to act” pattern established across 3 cases – I do wonder why I have a civil liberty issue of over 2 years duration in England, when I was born in England: the latest methodology is applying law which does not apply, as opposed to not applying any law or not applying law that does apply - the ex American Defence Secretary Rumsden may wish to know that this is the UK version of knowing that which you are supposed to know!
A quiet revolution … ?
18/09/09 Rollonfriday.com published an interesting article recently – a judge was actually shot via the evidence in court …
"An Irish solicitor is buffing up his CV after making the career-limiting move of shooting a judge in court. Judge John Neilan was hearing a Family Law case in Longford District Court on Tuesday when a solicitor accidentally shot him with an air pistol. It's not entirely clear why the pistol was being exhibited, or why it was loaded, or how the solicitor managed so accurately to target the judge. But the Longford Leader reports that the hard-as-nails judge was not seriously injured, and just dusted himself down and continued as normal.
I shot the sheriff Judge Neilan has some superb form. He's famous for his no nonsense pronouncements, and earlier this year he gave a man seven days jail to "learn some manners" after he talked in his courtroom. A spokesman for the Irish Court Service said that it was unable to comment on Family Law cases.
Everyone is supposed to sing from the same hymn sheet – chapter and verse "Equality before the law" but you could tell us what we have been changed regime managed into - Socrates did drink HEMLOCK for a reason because we don't know we don't know! : (a) Monarchy gets to sit on the UK Thrones – custom, practice and tradition enables the people to be equal to the Monarch and vice versa (safe and just society); (b) Democracy enables the state to create a system of "is" law based on "reasonable, reasonable, reasonable" standards (safe and just society) – we would really like to know what that is right now; (c) Oligarchy – the closed society of the 'seen' to be independent judiciary who are not complicit with any party let alone Respondents solicitors/barristers and who are not supposed to be located in the apartment below, above, next door or a couple of apartments down – invasion of privacy is aiding and abetting a perversion of the course of justice via HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION - I technically should not know the spooks! – as judges you have “Chronological Lists" attached to the "pleadings" and "evidence" bundles + "cause" in the lower part and + "effect" in the latter part (damages), with discovery, witness statements and cross-examination to follow as procedural rules – that is because the rule of law is DISCOVERED and then applied and never CREATED, the case is located WITH the point of law(s) in the Judgment ONLY as rule of law applied – you do not get to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff for bringing a Writ on the premis of "equality before the law", unless that is, you want to squirm and run the risk of being caught red-handed in the organised crime and corruption till, which would not be asinine for pointing it out via complaints and asking the Police to deal, something a Commander of Police appears to not appreciate: the Police DO have a duty and authority to catch CRIMINALS and SUSPECTED CRIMINALS, it would also be especially useful if they will locate the statutory or common law references when prohibited too, when claiming they do not have any duty or authority to ACT (ie do something) ... – you would not want to establish or be seen to establish or engaged in a pattern of conduct on the premis of an “omission to act” where there is a duty and/or authority to act – you would not want to be seen to be aiding and abetting a criminal offence – does create a safe and just society make any sense these days - the lawyers are the lemmings jumping off the cliff - they appear to have an inability to (a) see the problem; (b) know what to do about it; (c) would rather lose their lifestyle and not even eat - if Legal Week.com can be believed.
Its gone past the point where Respondents on my cases could actually settle via CPR Rule 1 without running the risk of arrest, charge and prosecution in any event (I have lost count of how many requests, and in writing, have been made to those with authority and duty TO ACT). At a later date should the police really really really want to deal with that 13 now 14 year “omission to act” pattern established across 3 cases – I do wonder why I have a civil liberty issue of over 2 years duration in England, when I was born in England: the latest methodology is applying law which does not apply, as opposed to not applying any law or not applying law that does apply - the ex American Defence Secretary Rumsden may wish to know that this is the UK version of knowing that which you are supposed to know!
A quiet revolution … ?
18/09/09 Rollonfriday.com published an interesting article recently – a judge was actually shot via the evidence in court …
"An Irish solicitor is buffing up his CV after making the career-limiting move of shooting a judge in court. Judge John Neilan was hearing a Family Law case in Longford District Court on Tuesday when a solicitor accidentally shot him with an air pistol. It's not entirely clear why the pistol was being exhibited, or why it was loaded, or how the solicitor managed so accurately to target the judge. But the Longford Leader reports that the hard-as-nails judge was not seriously injured, and just dusted himself down and continued as normal.
I shot the sheriff Judge Neilan has some superb form. He's famous for his no nonsense pronouncements, and earlier this year he gave a man seven days jail to "learn some manners" after he talked in his courtroom. A spokesman for the Irish Court Service said that it was unable to comment on Family Law cases.
posted by Lesley McDade at 2:05 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home