It
is hard to understand how the following laws ever came to be approved by
Parliament,.. perhaps the laws escaped the scrutiny of Parliament because the
job
was given to a few people instead. The rules
listed below have defaced the face of justice and has most certainly given a
big boost to corruption and judicial fraud and enabled targeted discrimination. Unscrupulous decisions of judges are stopped
from review by the following rules:
1) Judges no longer
have to explain their orders and judgments, this means that transparency and
accountability has been removed. So if we ask them about an irregular element
of their decision, we no longer get an answer.
2) Discretionary
powers have become extensive. Discretion secretly enables discrimination. Discretion means that an intermediary has
been wedged between the law and the citizen, so that the citizen has to plead
according to the human intercessor’s personal gratification rules rather than
the law.
3) They have made
appeals harder; they have added subjective and authoritarian steps, like
permission to appeal (even in small claims court), and removed independent
review of the appeal by giving the offending judge the power to decide the
permission knowing that it is unnatural for an offending judge to give
permission. Permission to appeal step takes away power from the citizen and the
applicability of law over to the human intercessor so that the human decides by
way of subjectivity and their personal whims rather than by rights or law.
4) Previously, the Defendants
were not part of appeals, now they are, the purpose is to allow them to cause
physical disruption, reduced speaking times for Claimants and additional cost
to victims for trying to appeal.
5) Costs are not recoverable in small claims
court (but the small claims band limit has been increased to £10,000, so it is
not so small and therefore it covers a larger range of the population). This rule is very “pro-fraud” because it means
that the victim bears extra legal expense and trouble to bring uncooperative
fraudsters to court but as the fraudster only incurs the cost of the original
debt, they are able to come to defend just for fun, to cause costs without
incurring any cost themselves as revenge to victims, however it takes a
fraudulent judiciary to allow their frivolous and vexatious defence with the
intention of not allowing cost relief to the victims.
6) On 14Jan2013, BBC
Parliament channel showed the debate over reforms to the “Crime and Courts
Bill”. On this debate there was a
mention about unifying the courts but no one gave an explanation about it and I
was confused at first since it would be impractical to merge all court
buildings into one building, so then it must have meant “Unified
Judiciary”. A Unified Judiciary concept
will totally wipe out independent review concept. Unified Judiciary means that a judge is no
longer free to have a different observation on the evidence of a case or
conclude with a different opinion, as they must be seen “Unified”. So this rule will further suppress freedom of
thought and expression, thereby strengthen and disguise any unscrupulous judicial
ruling, rather than bring it to accountability.
(7) The idea that a
case does not have to be heard at all is an extension of discretionary powers
and its aim is to avoid evidence. The consequence is obvious, it leaves the victims’
harm done to become worsened or remain ongoing.
This concept has had a profound effect on the general integrity of the
characters running the justice system as they no longer feel an obligation to
do justice.
(8) Unscrupulous judges can thus avoid evidence
by cherry picking or select snippets of information and partial sentences out
of context to suit their preferred outcome.
(9) Likewise, the use of the term, “No Prospect
of Success” is often fraudulently used to prevent appeals or to avoid
transparency behind an order or judgment where the evidence is not liked. “No Prospect of Success” is a forecast that
someone else will agree with their outcome, but how can an independent reviewer
know what to agree with if the reasons/evidence and/or risk analysis is not
supplied with it? Its false use have
increased the predictability for fraudulent Defendants that appeals can be
stopped this way.
10)
All regulatory bodies in Britain (who give the
impression that they are watchdogs working for the public) have been de-activated or neutered so that remedial action is not taken and
accountability is removed. The 3 methods
by which the inactivity is ensured is:
(1)
by preventing them from checking the evidence of individual cases
or
by,
(2)
imposing a ban on freedom of speech by asking the regulators not to express an
opinion or by,
(3)
making it a law that they should “not interfere with the judicial process”.
What
these rules do in effect is prevent the number of witnesses and expert witnesses
being available, and to prevent relevant experts/authorities from being able to
understand how the judge ought to have ruled.
This in turn increases the scope for judges to unlawfully alter/manipulate
or falsify the evidence in a victim’s case in accordance with their personal interests,
whims and wishes, more easily.
11.
a) Another
more direct restriction and an obvious measure of protection for judges from
being confronted with judicial fraud evidence is how they have stopped
solicitors and barristers from uttering the word, “fraud”. Such a rule would not have been needed if it
was not a frequent problem. This rule stops identification of the problem being
addressed by a legal person. This enables the activity to exist but prevents
the investigation of it because making a finding of fraud cannot be expressed.
11 b)
And just so to ensure an additional obstacle is put on
judicial fraud recognition, the solicitor or barrister is also not allowed to
make any suggestions that there might be a [Judge to Defendant] relationship
even though the evidence exists and is obvious.
11c)
On a similar note, rules have been brought out to not
allow court tapes to be shared with the public/applicant whilst preventing
applicants from bringing their own tape recorders. The offending judge is then
given the step of accessing and authorizing the tapes for transcription. In other words the opportunity to check the tapes
and edit them before releasing them to transcription companies for transcripts
has
been allowed.
Impact :
The
impact is that there is regular misuse of these laws due to lack of
transparency and accountability, it can best be seen from how individual cases
are treated, that’s why regulatory bodies have been prevented from studying
individual cases, so that the evidence would not be so easily leaked. I have many cases to reveal these behaviours,
one such example is that a false defence statement which misleads a judiciary
is supposed be a crime (or contempt of court) under CPR rule (Civil Rules of
Procedure) PD32 sec 28 (1) which we are allowed to report to the Attorney
General
if
we have the evidence. But when I did
send my evidence to the Attorney General’s Office (dealt with by the secretary
general MP Oliver Heald), he refused to apply the law to my case (ie take
action against the Defendant) even though he agreed that his office is right
place to deal with contempt of court cases).
So here is an example of a senior judicial role failing to uphold Rule
of Law and quite distinctly discriminated me. The effect of this decision is
that it opens up the floodgates for all fraudsters to submit false defence
statements with the expectation that their false statements can win as the
judiciary and any regulatory mechanism fails to take action against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment