Constitution
Hi there, I have a few things to comment on:
Firstly, the Chilcot Inquiry. The update to progress on the Inquiry was released in January : http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/ but unfortunately it would appear that my evidence to the Inquiry has not been considered, ie a letter to Tony Blair ex-PM dated 22 June 2000 wherein I inform that we [the UK] have been "invaded" by a concept - Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR. I specifically use the word invaded in clause 7 of the letter and this is why I believe the Iraq war was a decoy war. However on the website above it informs the Inquiry consideration starts from the Summer of 2001 which excludes my information. I have sent a copy of the letter to my MP for onward transmission to John Chilcot and other MPs - that is the most I can do.
Concerning my research, I thought I had moved on, if only a little - it is following me, however I may now have the answer: ADR in the justice system is against the Constitution howsoever unwritten in the UK. I have written an essay for my new degree course which I may publish once marked, so some more time needed, but my thinking is in the right direction ... unelected judges v elected MPs and the Executive! How do you get Justice if judges don't think/reason?! The irony of the Woolf Reforms as contained in the Final Report "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" should have brought the Constitutional lawyers out to play ... never too late though!
Finally, in law my research led me to believe the issue is treason. R v Hennessy (1758) 1 BURR. The ratio decidendi is "inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom". Its a very short case but applied objectively is not racism.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg, Lord Woolf of Barnes, Ex-PM Tony Blair and Professor Hazel Genn of University College London have [incited] David Shapiro, an American Jew and five others (unknown) [a friendly alien] to bring a Japanese concept Alternative Dispute Resolution which he has modified - cheaper and quicker than litigation rather than to save loss of face [to invade] the UK especially England & Wales via the Access to Justice Act 1999 [the kingdom].
I have a copy of David Shapiro's profile whilst he was employed at S J Berwin & Co which makes for interesting reading. At an inhouse lecture he claimed he and five others that he named brought the concept to America. [There does exist a video of this seminar but I don't have a copy, just some notes and a profile]. I would like to know why his modified version of ADR has been promulgated in the UK and Europe and why I as a British Citizen have been unable to stop it. Anyway, you know who the culprits / players are!
I have to keep reminding myself that initially they [Masons] tried to sack me because Cathy James had a loud voice. This should speak volumes that I am not causation in events which have been ongoing for 20 years. I have not been able to get Justice nor properly access to justice, nor informal justice on my three litigations. I am now seeking solutions from the political domain and parliamentary sovereignty, such as:
1. A Regulation in the whole of Europe to outlaw ADR/IDS/Informal Justice/Mediation from all public domain institutions. I would go further and outlaw it entirely but feel limited by the fact that we live in a democracy and parties in the private domain have the right to decide where they wish to resolve their dispute which may have some good in a compromise of 50:50. In any event, ADR is about compromise of the rule of law. There is room for litigation, arbitration and mediation but their premises need to be clearly defined - public/private application of the rule of law and non-legal in the private domain.
2. A Public Inquiry to cover my three litigations and research on ADR in the judicial system. I was not causation and the Woolf Reforms need to be overturned and Justice restored to a democratic society.
3. The criminalisation of those involved in perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office to include a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Professor Richard Susskind OBE and others including deliberate acts of concealment by the judiciary.
4. Compensation and damages for 20 years of nonsense in the courts - I was not cause in any of my 3 litigations.
5. The issue of "invasion" by a modified Japanese concept, ADR within the judicial system and an investigation of David Shapiro and those named above: having gone through mediation, my view is that the concept is a con/scam in its current format as being referred to as a form of Justice, it is not Justice, never can be because it is compromise and the parties decide the outcome, not a Judge. Because a Judge is never engage in the outcome, a persons rights in law are not protected especially their human rights, albeit the right to privacy is.
On 5 alone litigation should mean greater emphasis on your human right to freedom of expression. Arbitration should have greater emphasis on your human right to privacy. Whereas mediation is about gagging clauses and automatically protects privacy over freedom of expression. This may be something David Cameron would consider in his reforms to the Human Rights Act 1998, especially as this Act means unelected judges have more power than elected politicians in decision making often overriding decisions by the Home Secretary. However, Parliament retains the right to repeal the Act per se. Just as it should repeal the Access to Justice Act 1999 as it is fraud - ADR is not Justice or Access to Justice when contained in the judicial system, it is access to compromise - not the same thing. When you "know" a mistake, misrepresentation has been made you are supposed to rectify it immediately. So why I have been ignored all these years is of concern as I am a British citizen supposedly living in a democracy ... but maybe not ... as I have been unable to get Justice through the British courts and justice is fundamental to democracy as is equality: I appear to be unequal in society albeit I have refused to use the court appeal system at least until the Woolf Reforms are overturned (which is inequality) and the abuse of processes rectified as per my three litigations, hence the need for a Public Inquiry.
My MP is aware of my issues, and so I wait for the PM, Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor to act ...
Firstly, the Chilcot Inquiry. The update to progress on the Inquiry was released in January : http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/ but unfortunately it would appear that my evidence to the Inquiry has not been considered, ie a letter to Tony Blair ex-PM dated 22 June 2000 wherein I inform that we [the UK] have been "invaded" by a concept - Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR. I specifically use the word invaded in clause 7 of the letter and this is why I believe the Iraq war was a decoy war. However on the website above it informs the Inquiry consideration starts from the Summer of 2001 which excludes my information. I have sent a copy of the letter to my MP for onward transmission to John Chilcot and other MPs - that is the most I can do.
Concerning my research, I thought I had moved on, if only a little - it is following me, however I may now have the answer: ADR in the justice system is against the Constitution howsoever unwritten in the UK. I have written an essay for my new degree course which I may publish once marked, so some more time needed, but my thinking is in the right direction ... unelected judges v elected MPs and the Executive! How do you get Justice if judges don't think/reason?! The irony of the Woolf Reforms as contained in the Final Report "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" should have brought the Constitutional lawyers out to play ... never too late though!
Finally, in law my research led me to believe the issue is treason. R v Hennessy (1758) 1 BURR. The ratio decidendi is "inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom". Its a very short case but applied objectively is not racism.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg, Lord Woolf of Barnes, Ex-PM Tony Blair and Professor Hazel Genn of University College London have [incited] David Shapiro, an American Jew and five others (unknown) [a friendly alien] to bring a Japanese concept Alternative Dispute Resolution which he has modified - cheaper and quicker than litigation rather than to save loss of face [to invade] the UK especially England & Wales via the Access to Justice Act 1999 [the kingdom].
I have a copy of David Shapiro's profile whilst he was employed at S J Berwin & Co which makes for interesting reading. At an inhouse lecture he claimed he and five others that he named brought the concept to America. [There does exist a video of this seminar but I don't have a copy, just some notes and a profile]. I would like to know why his modified version of ADR has been promulgated in the UK and Europe and why I as a British Citizen have been unable to stop it. Anyway, you know who the culprits / players are!
I have to keep reminding myself that initially they [Masons] tried to sack me because Cathy James had a loud voice. This should speak volumes that I am not causation in events which have been ongoing for 20 years. I have not been able to get Justice nor properly access to justice, nor informal justice on my three litigations. I am now seeking solutions from the political domain and parliamentary sovereignty, such as:
1. A Regulation in the whole of Europe to outlaw ADR/IDS/Informal Justice/Mediation from all public domain institutions. I would go further and outlaw it entirely but feel limited by the fact that we live in a democracy and parties in the private domain have the right to decide where they wish to resolve their dispute which may have some good in a compromise of 50:50. In any event, ADR is about compromise of the rule of law. There is room for litigation, arbitration and mediation but their premises need to be clearly defined - public/private application of the rule of law and non-legal in the private domain.
2. A Public Inquiry to cover my three litigations and research on ADR in the judicial system. I was not causation and the Woolf Reforms need to be overturned and Justice restored to a democratic society.
3. The criminalisation of those involved in perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office to include a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Professor Richard Susskind OBE and others including deliberate acts of concealment by the judiciary.
4. Compensation and damages for 20 years of nonsense in the courts - I was not cause in any of my 3 litigations.
5. The issue of "invasion" by a modified Japanese concept, ADR within the judicial system and an investigation of David Shapiro and those named above: having gone through mediation, my view is that the concept is a con/scam in its current format as being referred to as a form of Justice, it is not Justice, never can be because it is compromise and the parties decide the outcome, not a Judge. Because a Judge is never engage in the outcome, a persons rights in law are not protected especially their human rights, albeit the right to privacy is.
On 5 alone litigation should mean greater emphasis on your human right to freedom of expression. Arbitration should have greater emphasis on your human right to privacy. Whereas mediation is about gagging clauses and automatically protects privacy over freedom of expression. This may be something David Cameron would consider in his reforms to the Human Rights Act 1998, especially as this Act means unelected judges have more power than elected politicians in decision making often overriding decisions by the Home Secretary. However, Parliament retains the right to repeal the Act per se. Just as it should repeal the Access to Justice Act 1999 as it is fraud - ADR is not Justice or Access to Justice when contained in the judicial system, it is access to compromise - not the same thing. When you "know" a mistake, misrepresentation has been made you are supposed to rectify it immediately. So why I have been ignored all these years is of concern as I am a British citizen supposedly living in a democracy ... but maybe not ... as I have been unable to get Justice through the British courts and justice is fundamental to democracy as is equality: I appear to be unequal in society albeit I have refused to use the court appeal system at least until the Woolf Reforms are overturned (which is inequality) and the abuse of processes rectified as per my three litigations, hence the need for a Public Inquiry.
My MP is aware of my issues, and so I wait for the PM, Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor to act ...
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:02 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home