The Disability-Research Discussion List

I get concerned when something which is not specificaly a disabilty issue
gets presented as a disability issue

I am sure I coud here the same argument from the afro caribean community or
the working classes

Let us not confuse generalised oppression and exploitation from educated
elites with particular persecution as that surely devaluse our cause

Solicitors and there cousins rip everybody off including each other

Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of ColRevs
> Sent: 27 January 2003 21:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Solicitors and Barristers ripping off clients ?
>
>
> How many more of you feel that disabled people are not getting justice by
> solicitors and barristers in the U.K.
>
> This is my experience after 8 years of battling for a clinical
> negligence/failure of duty of care case against my local public health and
> social authorities. My solicitors ripped me off and they are
> ripping others
> off and there is nothing you or I can do about it, is they ?
>
> I have been left isolated now and my local public authorities have the
> 'power' to discriminate and abuse my human rights.
>
> If you think the public authorities complaints procedures or Local
> Government Ombudsman, or Health Service Ombudsman or
> Parliamentary Ombudsman
> or Disability Rights Commission are going to listen to me or any other
> oppressed marginalised group, then it's time 'we' all had a 'reality
> check', in the U.K. All these complaints procedures and Government
> Organisations are 'tokenistic' and are sugar coatings for keeping
> the class
> system in place and the working and underclass's in their place.
>
> It's all a con and the real criminals are the ones with the 'power'.
>
> Have any of you read the article I've included below ?
>
> Do you know any similar articles in which highlights the facts the current
> legal aid system and lawyers are not really representing the underclass's
> and disabled people and they are not acting with the clients best interest
> at heart and they are lining their own pockets for their own
> selfish greed.
>
> Are there any genuine solicitors and barristers who care ?
>
> Have you ever tried complaining about a solicitor? In my
> experience you get
> struck-off and The Law Society and the BAR Council are tokenistic
> and don't
> listen.
>
> Colin Revell...Article below included....
>
> Lawyers or social group?
>
> In his book "Lawyers and the Public Interest", pub. Weidenfeld
> and N., 1968,
> law lecturer Michael Zander complained that while studying law at
> Cambridge,
> he had to travel down to London three times a week merely to dine at the
> Inns of Court. He asked how dining with other fledgling barristers could
> possibly further the education of a barrister. Virtually nothing overtly
> educational occurred, and when it did, few attended.
>
> Zander's complaint illustrates the underlying, unacknowledged dynamic.
> Lawyers - solicitors, barristers and judges - are a social group, not an
> array of individuals with expert skills. As a group, they seek to
> foster our
> morals, rather than to keep us law-abiding. In their view, they
> fail when we
> break a moral code rather than when we break the law. Thus, the man caught
> in a divorce case fundamentally misunderstands the self-appointed role of
> the legal brotherhood. The dinners were more important than any
> study of the
> law can be. Zander missed the point by becoming an academic, immersed in
> legal nicety, and thus getting himself debarred from office in a moral
> hierarchy.
>
> The refusal to appoint the most revered professor of law to the bench is a
> clue to the true nature of the legal enterprise.
>
> Another clue is the common assertion that a judge decides the case by
> instinct and then looks for law to justify his instinctive decision.
>
> A further clue is the law lord who burst out with the words; "I
> am lost in a
> sea of common law and of equity."
>
> A last clue is the absurd statement by your own solicitor; "I am
> an Officer
> of the Court". This has been developed by one writer to the point
> where the
> solicitor or barrister that you are paying, and naively think is
> working for
> you, has some four or five masters. You are his most junior master, little
> more than his source of funds.
>
> English law pretends to be an adversarial system. This implies the
> following. Your lawyers assume you are in the right and promote your case.
> Your adversary's lawyers assume he is right, and promote his
> case. The judge
> acts as referee. This pretence further misleads the innocent
> litigant as to
> the true nature of the legal industry, which is moral rather than
> legal. The
> only purpose served by the pretence, that our system is
> adversarial, is that
> it relieves all the lawyers of the hard work to establish the facts of the
> case. They then replace the real case by a standard case with
> which they are
> already familiar and which matches, or at least indulges, their fantasies
> and prejudices and those of the media. Thus, every real divorce case is
> replaced by an imaginary case where the husband is at least violent and at
> best a child molester. What the husband does not know is that, since he
> takes the role of the villain, the substitute case is one which he will
> comprehensively lose. The reason why he takes the role of the villain is
> that radical feminists control the media, and Lord Chief Justice
> Taylor says
> that the law responds to public opinion, that is, the interests of the
> radical feminists. Judges do not serve their own class interests, as Simon
> Lee suggests, but rather, they serve the interests of those in power, or
> apparently in power. Lawyers get their impression of what is
> public opinion,
> or rather their impression as to who is in power, from the media.
> Following
> the Equal Opportunities legislation, which led to heavy representation in
> the media by radical feminists, they now virtually control it, and take
> every opportunity to promote the myth of Man as Witch. (The
> greatest threat
> to a child and mother is the witch-father, who primarily desires
> to sexually
> molest the one and batter the other.) To check this assertion you
> have only
> to open a newspaper or switch on your television set.
>
> Ten years ago there was a well documented, concerted putsch by a
> combination
> of radical feminist organisations to increase their influence in
> the media.
> The quotation from Janet Daley, page 84, confirms that this
> putsch is still
> in operation.
>
> .... the importance of fatherhood. Most feminists still think this subject
> is taboo, and raising it an act of treason.
>
> - Ros Coward, The Guardian, 12apr96, p17.
>
> The Name of the Rose.
>
> Umberto Eco's book discusses the deep secret, that Jesus had a sense of
> humour, which was kept from the world by faithful monks who were
> prepared to
> die to prevent the secret from coming out. No one is prepared to
> die for the
> deep secret underlying the legal industry, and nobody has to. The
> secret is
> so bizarre and implausable that it will be rejected by many who read it
> here.
>
> The law does not work.
>
> The way this secret is kept is similar to the way another secret, that God
> does not exist and the traditional received Jesus myth collapses under
> scholarly scrutiny, is kept within the Jesuit community.
>
> Jesuits are the scholars of the Catholic church, and a new Jesuit recruit
> finally arrives at this awful truth, but only after years of study and
> soul-searching. He may then just leave Orders, but often he first
> announces
> his loss of faith to his superiors. To his astonishment, he is told not to
> worry, that faith is only for the masses, not for the cognoscenti which he
> is joining. The church is there to control, reassure and pleasure the
> ignorant masses.
>
> The case of the law is different. Most lawyers never find out that the law
> does not work. They continue faithfully to think that the problems are of
> detail, and can be put right by reform. If a lawyer progresses up the
> hierarchy, the truth only dawns gradually. When fully convinced of the
> truth, it is too late. He is locked into a career of falsehood.
> The reality
> is that the law is there to control, reassure and rip off the ignorant
> masses. At the same time, under the cloak of discretion and equity, it
> imposes masonic/radical feminist morality rather than the rule of
> law. This
> last is the moral fig-leaf that racketeering lawyers plagued by conscience
> use to blind themselves to the fact that they are part of an anti-social
> group. It is very similar to the pretence of public service by the masons
> which salves their consciences while they conspire to rob society
> by rigging
> local planning applications and otherwise subverting our institutions.
>
> Fortunately for them, few lawyers have the intellectual capacity
> to see the
> fundamental dislocations in the law, and continue their comfortable,
> arrogant way through their working life and beyond. Denning is the
> outstanding case. He once wrote, "Jurisprudence was too abstract for my
> liking. .... I like to get down to the practical problems....". At least
> until recently, education in the law was a matter of learning masses of
> information by heart and regurgitating it in examinations. This attracted
> walking encyclopaedias to the profession. Such skill tends to be
> incompatible with jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, so
> fundamental flaws
> go unnoticed, or at most they are but dimly sensed, by Denning and other
> practitioners.
>
> The Evolved Conspiracy.
>
> The purpose served by the interminable compulsory dinners for law students
> at the Inns of Court is to socialise the lawyer into group loyalty. This
> makes it easier for him to form a united front with the opposing barrister
> and solicitor, and with the judge, against his own client and against the
> law. All the lawyers involved in a case conspire to pretend that the
> procedure in a civil court is a legal one, which it is not.
>
> The law does not work.
>
> This deep secret explains two contrary themes in the legal
> industry. First,
> oppression, and secondly, the currying of favour with power and with the
> public. It also explains the heavy preponderance of secret courts.
>
> Sensing that he is sitting on shifting, essentially illegal, sands, the
> judge will assert that the litigant before him is unsavoury in one or more
> ways. This ensures that the judge will have the moral advantage and so
> retain control of the case. Rather than concentrate on the inconsistencies
> and the idiocy that the lawyers have made of his case, the litigant is
> forced onto the defensive, trying to prove that after all he himself is
> honourable. At the same time, the judge curries favour with those in power
> and with the media in order to deflect them from the awful
> realisation that
> the legal process is a sham.
>
> We can resolve a misconception which dogged the study of the law
> so long as
> judges came from the ruling caste, which also controlled the media. These
> three have now separated out a little. One suggestion by Simon Lee, that
> judges use their discretion to further their own class interest
> in the name
> of public interest, can now be reinterpreted. The radical
> feminist interest,
> controlling the media, masquerades as the public interest. Judges
> use their
> discretion to further their own interest at second hand. Firstly, they
> further the interest of the new perceived ruling caste, the radical
> feminists, thus currying favour with it. The radical feminists then repay
> their sycophants, which is what today's judges are. As a result, the last
> surviving rump of favoured men in an increasingly radical feminist society
> with its disintegrating economy may be the judges and other
> lawyers. Serving
> the radical feminists on the one hand and having fifty per cent of the
> membership of the House of Commons on the other, lawyers confront us as a
> formidable, entrenched adversary. We can see why no judge dares to jail a
> mother who defies a court order.
>
> Mata Hari in Cyprus
>
> The Russians set up a honeypot in Cyprus. They recruited a local
> man to hire
> Phillipino girls and entice in British servicemen from the local military
> stations. These men would then reveal military secrets to the girls, who
> would relay them to the local pimp, and thence to the Russians.
>
> Meanwhile, Panos Koupparis, who had made millions of pounds from his
> security business, designing and selling security equipment to and
> hobnobbing with Heads of State throughout Europe and beyond,
> carried on his
> business in the house next door.
>
> In due course, the British Plods found out about the Russian ruse. They
> closed in and arrested many suspects who had been drawn into the honeypot
> trap. A massive investigation, costing perhaps forty million
> pounds, led to
> not one conviction. However, while stumbling around, the police came upon
> signs of suspicious activity next door. They broke in, and found security
> equipment - telephone taps, secret microphones, correspondence with
> unsavoury foreign government customers, and more. Here was the chance to
> cover up for their blundering in the honeypot case.
>
> Panos, already married to a younger woman, fell in love with an
> even younger
> model. When his wife found out, she resolved to get him sectioned so that
> she would gain full control of his multi-million pound fortune.
> In Cyprus it
> is not a criminal offence to masquerade as a doctor, and this was
> the status
> of her husband's G.P. Mrs. Koupparis prevailed on him to prescribe massive
> overdoses of drugs, including Halcyon, to the unsuspecting
> husband-lover. As
> she intended, these pushed him into violent, paranoid, hallucinatory
> behaviour culminating in the most bizarre events. However, his
> behaviour was
> too unpredictable, including the threat to blow up the island of Cyprus on
> the first of April using local pigs with remote controlled bombs inside
> them. The radio remote control would be from satellite. All this was
> proceeding at the same time as the honeytrap investigation fiasco
> next door.
>
> The enthusiasm of the British police, having failed next door, was great,
> but unfortunately they arrested and charged, not only Panos, but also his
> wife, who languished in jail for more than a year. The amount of activity
> indicated a dozen active spies involved in the crazy activity of the lone
> hallucinating Panos, and the charges against him and his wife reflected
> this, with criminal activity occurring on the same day in England and
> Cyprus.
>
> At the first trial, Panos threw a spanner in the works by
> charging his wife
> with attempted murder via drugs, causing the judge to abandon the
> trial. The
> government let his wife out of jail, and saw that the scandal could be
> resolved if Panos were adjudged unfit to plead and quietly slipped into
> Broadmoor for good. At the next trial, Panos suddenly prevented this by
> producing a certificate showing he had passed A level English in prison
> within eight days of the date when the doctor reported him
> insane. The judge
> abandoned the second case.
>
> By now, the Cyprus government was demanding blood, and so a third, fully
> rigged, trial, was convened. It was essentially secret, like the previous
> two, and Panos went to jail for four years. Refusing to confess guilt when
> his parole came up, he suffered the full four year term. (In England, the
> innocent serve twice the term served by the guilty, who have
> their sentences
> halved in return for confessing. Panos discovered that a
> 'confession' could
> be used against him in court in future, so he served out his further two
> years.)
>
> Panos now runs "Scandals in Justice", published on the world-wide web. It
> has a 100% success rate in extricating innocent victims from
> being framed in
> the criminal courts.
>
>
>
> The New Witch
>
> This book will be helpful for the married man with children who
> has received
> a divorce petition, or might receive one in the future. He needs
> to confront
> the worst as soon as he can. This is that for ever into the future he will
> be a second or third class citizen, with no right to own property or earn
> salary, no right of access to his children or any say in their upbringing.
> He joins a class which has been excreted by society and
> criminalised. If he
> works at all, it will be in the grey or black economy. The present book is
> kept short and bleak, so that the divorcing man can grasp the outlines of
> the message about his grave situation quickly. He needs to have a grasp of
> why the whole of society should suddenly turn on him and his
> children, rend
> him, and excrete him. This will forewarn him to be on his guard,
> to attempt
> to defend himself to what little degree he can, by going to ground,
> particularly psychologically.
>
> He has to learn that society regards him as a witch. Such an outlaw has no
> responsibility to co-operate in the smooth running of his society.
>
> It is important to assemble in one place the many, many reasons why judges
> always, nonchalantly, permanently cut children of divorce off from their
> fathers.
>
> Radical feminist propaganda. I began to re-read Germaine Greer's
> "The Female
> Eunuch", and was horrified by the content. There we see immediately the
> attack on family, the recommendation that women be promiscuous. After
> behaving for decades as male chauvinist pigs, judges in a body,
> reading the
> pervasive "women as victim" propaganda, have developed guilt
> about their own
> behaviour in their very limited world. Their stratagem now is to
> make it up
> to women by usurping other children's and other men's rights. This gives
> them a glow without costing them anything.
>
> Heinz Lipschutz, a German who was there, says that the man-bashing
> propaganda in our media today is far worse than the anti-Jewish propaganda
> in Germany in 1935. There has been no counter-argument whatsoever, and
> judges have fallen to the myth of man as witch. This myth, assiduously
> promoted over decades by Greer and the rest, reached its terrible,
> destructive culmination in Cleveland, Rochdale and Orkney, where the same
> single ignorant, virtually untrained social worker triggered off the
> kidnapping and abduction of children from their homes and families in a
> drama which later proved to have no foundation whatsoever.
>
> In this case, the characterisation of men as witches broke out of its
> ghetto, and mothers were also so characterised. Similarly, non-Jews were
> drawn into the holocaust, and non-aristocrats suffered in the French
> revolution. Nobody is safe when the poisonous, Salem-style hysteria, for
> instance on page 3 of The Observer, 18th August, 1996, takes hold.
>
> A judge switches from criminal to family cases and back on a daily basis.
> Judge Pickles writes that men are the criminals, and women are only drawn
> into criminality by men, who are the real culprits. The prejudice among
> judges that men commit crime and women do not, is rife, as we see
> every day
> in their sentencing. Such a judge, coming from sentencing men to jail and
> far fewer women to community service, is unable to adjust to the
> concept of
> a blameless man standing before him in the family court only days
> later. One
> of many elements of confusion in the English courts is the
> uncertainty as to
> whether the Family Courts are adversarial or inquisitorial. Brought up in
> the English adversarial system, and returning to it tomorrow in another
> court, the presiding judge looks for the criminal, and
> unfailingly finds the
> divorcing man.
>
> A man who sues for divorce, as I did, will notice how all the
> lawyers behave
> as though he himself is being sued for divorce. This is because
> they cannot
> cope with the idea of a criminal witch wanting to divorce the blameless
> victim. He will find that it is he who has to defend his behaviour. They
> just forget that the man initiated the divorce action. In any case, most
> divorces are initiated by wives.
>
> Junior judges are under the influence of senior judges, who may or may not
> promote them. This is why, when studying the behaviour of judges as a
> species, we should expect the juniors to ape their seniors, which they do.
> Thus, the social framework of senior judges, and its effect on their
> judgement, has a disproportionate effect.
>
> Virtually all senior judges went to boarding school, and then
> sent their own
> children to boarding school. Their narrow class has institutionalised the
> brutal cutting off of a child from its parents, particularly from its
> father, who remains bogged down in the City during most of the school
> holidays. Thus, a judge has no comprehension of the father-child
> relationship and its importance to the child's health and
> happiness. Because
> both his parents and he himself have wilfully visited the same damage on
> their children, a judge cannot afford to take the matter
> seriously. To do so
> would undermine his confidence in his class, to which he showed
> his loyalty
> by taking to the law. His dissident brother, appalled by the behaviour of
> his class, including their way of banishing their own children, became a
> journalist, artist, drug addict or dosser, and so disappears from the
> self-reinforcing scene; a scene being imposed on the rest of the divorcing
> population by these sectarian judges.
>
> If there is truth in the assertion that boarding school is a
> breeding ground
> for sexual perversion and brutality, then this would give us one
> reason why
> judges are so anxious to believe any such allegations against a divorcing
> man. The judge has to believe that such behaviour is equally rife
> among the
> lower orders, or he betrays his class. However, I think that the
> main reason
> why judges welcome perjured charges against divorcing men is elsewhere, as
> we shall see.
>
>
>
> The Sisterhood and the Brotherhood
>
> Germaine Greer's christening of "The Sisterhood" points to her study of
> Masonry, called "The Brotherhood", leading to her ability to manipulate
> masonic judges. Virtually all senior judges are Freemasons. The
> question of
> why male judges should serve the radical feminist cause can be translated
> into asking whether The Brotherhood and The Sisterhood; the Freemasons and
> the Radical feminists, are allies or enemies.
>
> First we need to recapitulate on the development of the Feminist movement.
> The important feature for our purpose is the common assertion that the New
> Feminists, or Radical Feminists, do not pursue the same objectives as the
> Suffragettes and their descendants, the Feminists. The
> suffragettes and the
> feminists campaigned for equality, whereas today's radical feminists have
> been called Feminazi because they campaign for power leading to
> domination.
> Assertiveness training means exactly what it says! It has been pointed out
> that the Radical Feminists demand that a woman should not be held
> responsible for her actions, and this has led to the protest that the
> radicals are pushing women back into Victorian times, with chaperoning and
> other special protection for women.
>
> The story that Pankhurst handed white feathers to those men who
> avoided the
> war would however indicate some early retreat from equality as an
> objective
> for the suffragettes. Should the recusants have rather killed
> themselves by
> getting under horses, or should they have gone to the front?
>
> Now we turn to Freemasonry. A primary feature of Masonry is that it
> distinguishes strongly between men and women, as do the radical feminists.
> Masons even deny membership of their cult to women. Masonry also
> characterises women as wilful, lacking the long term view. It is clear on
> analysis that the radical feminists and Freemasonry are congruent, both
> wanting special treatment for women. The Suffragettes, with their dream of
> equality, were diametrically opposed to the special treatment from which
> they sought to escape.
>
> Masons take pride in looking after their (little) women. The judge in the
> family court, almost certainly a Mason but in any case under the strong
> influence of his betters, the Masonic senior judges, sees before him a man
> who has broken with Masonic precepts by deserting, or failing to satisfy,
> his woman. Masonic gallantry, another strong feature of the cult,
> leads him
> to supply the missing gallantry to the woman before him, at no cost to
> himself, but at terrible cost to the children of the family and their
> father. In doing so he fulfils his masonic oaths while at the same time
> placating a rampant and threatening Radical Feminist movement.
>
> A recent landmark Court of Appeal decision made it clear that, should an
> obstructive mother defy court orders giving her children access to their
> father, the court would acquiesce, and use its powers to assist the mother
> in her obstruction. The alleged reason was that the children's interests
> came first. If the mother were thwarted, the risk of her taking revenge on
> the children would be too great. So today, all courts agree that
> they can be
> blackmailed by an obstructive mother into denying to her children their
> primary civil rights, including access to their own father.
>
> The real reason for the Court of Appeal decision is very different. Lord
> Chief Justice Taylor recently said on television; "The courts respond to
> public opinion." The truth is that, were a court to jail a mother for
> defying a court order, demonstrations outside the jail, with the
> media fully
> assembled, would occur. Dominated by the radical feminists as it now is,
> "public opinion" would be totally against the jailing, so Taylor would be
> forced to reverse the decision by some devious means, in a further
> humiliation of an already threadbare legal system. Foreseeing the
> danger, he
> has pre-empted the event by acceding to the principle that a child is the
> chattel of its mother, and has no civil rights.
>
> Given that landmark decision, all future court hearings about access are a
> waste of time, except insofar as they generate costs. The reason why your
> own solicitor will inveigle you into hearings over your
> children's access to
> you are merely for his benefit, not yours or your child's. He will gain
> Costs during the useless hearings.
>
> In a letter in The Independent on 12 January 1994, Jasmine Salisbury, a
> magistrate serving on the family panel, wrote; ".... contact
> orders .... are
> in practice unenforceable, and where such an order is flouted for no good
> reason the parent seeking contact has no remedy. .... The father seeking
> contact is powerless if the mother refuses to release the child in
> compliance with an order. .... Parents seeking legitimate contact
> enforcement, and the courts they resort to, are engaged in a charade."
>
> Earlier, Mackay wrote to me admitting that courts would not enforce their
> own orders over contact when they were flouted by defiant
> mothers. From the
> time some years ago when circuit judge Ryland gave my child what she
> confirmed that she herself wanted; 50% time with her father and 50% time
> with her mother, the child has had no contact with her father.
> Recently, the
> Law Lords judgement in the Appeal Court, stated by a female
> judge, confirmed
> that the courts would not enforce court orders giving children access to
> their fathers. The European Court will overturn this crazy
> judgement far too
> late for my child.
>
> A good example of the way in which your own solicitor is opposed to your
> interests is that, firstly, he will fail to tell you for at least a year
> that a court order re access should have a penal notice attached. Then, a
> year or two later, he will fail to warn you that even with a penal notice
> attached, a court order giving a child access to its father is
> not worth the
> paper it is written on. Judges have frequently said that they will never
> jail a defiant mother because of the effect on the children! The resulting
> effect on children is that one half of the children of divorce
> have lost all
> contact with their fathers. How many jailed mothers would be worse than
> that? The truth, as we have seen, is that a judge is deterred from jailing
> the mother because of its effect on his career. In the law's present state
> of dilapidation, no judge dare face up to the anger of the
> radical feminists
> and their media power. No wonder every judge in the country welcomes, and
> nurtures, any hint that the father before him is a child molester or
> violent. Lacking such a hint, he will grasp at, and try to expand, less
> relevant charges against the father. An attractive second-best is the
> assertion that he is an uncaring father. Suitably embroidered, a judge can
> use even a hint on those lines to provide a smokescreen for his
> fear of the
> radical feminists.
>
> At the same time as a child's acknowledged basic civil right of access to
> its father is persistently obstructed by the court, in defiance of its own
> court orders, mothers are jailed for evading the TV licence fee. In such
> cases, the court happily cuts a mother off from her children. Robin Gay
> argues that when a man is involved, the radical feminist agenda is met by
> the judge, but if no man is involved, the law can be applied to
> women. This
> is how he attempts to explain why in one case, defiance of a
> court order is
> condoned, while in the other, much less serious case, not
> involving the sex
> war, the law can be enforced.
>
> On the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, 3nov96, Julia Kirkbridge
> discussed the campaign by women's groups to end the jailing of
> women for TV
> licence fee defaulting.
>
> The hidden radical feminist agenda, of course, is that any father is a
> witch, and only seeks access to his children in order to molest them
> sexually.
>
> Haringey has a policy that, should there be uncorroborated
> charges against a
> father, it will prevent any contact between father and child, and
> the father
> will be banned from case hearings. In a recent case, when the mother was
> grabbed by police and put into a mental home, the council put the children
> into foster care rather than allow them to have any contact with their
> father, against whom no charges had been proven. This is the
> knock-on effect
> of irresponsible judges feeding into the concept developed by the radical
> feminist-dominated social services that all men are witches.
>
> The carefully developed concept, of Man as Witch, had its tragic
> culmination
> in Cleveland, Rochdale and Orkney, when children were kidnapped by the
> social services and cut off for months from their totally
> innocent parents,
> mothers as well as fathers. They were even cut off from siblings and from
> any representatives of their own Quaker and Jewish religions. A 1995 High
> Court decision established that such social services and social
> workers, in
> Cleveland, Rochdale, Orkney and anywhere else, are immune from prosecution
> for their destructive anti-social behaviour, based on their
> belief that all
> men are witches. Before that decision, Cleveland had already settled one
> million pounds on the families they had attacked, but the recent court
> decision means they need not have done so, and the Orkney victim families
> will get nothing.
>
> Children have no right to sue local authorities for harm when
> wrongly taken
> into care for suspected abuse or when authorities fail to protect
> them from
> neglect or abuse, the House of Lords ruled yesterday. - Terence
> Shaw, Legal
> Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 30th June 1995, page 2.
>
>
>
> Language.
>
> Argot. The jargon, slang, or peculiar phraseology of a class,
> orig. that of
> thieves and rogues.
>
> Brogue. An escheat; a cheat -1791
>
> Brogue. 1. A rude shoe, or untanned hide, worn in the wilder parts of
> Ireland and the Scotch Highlands.
>
> Brogue. 1705. [perh. same wd. as prec.] A strongly-marked dialectical
> pronunciation or accent; now esp. that of the English speech of Ireland.
>
> Doggerel, doggrel. ME. [In earliest use adj. in rym dogerel, presumable f.
> DOG (with contemptuous implication as in dog Latin, dog rime ... see -REL]
>
> A. adj. An epithet applied to burlesque verse of irregular rhythm; or to
> mean, trivial, or undignified verse. transf. Bastard, burlesque.
>
> Patois. A provincial form of a language spoken in a restricted area and
> having no literary status. .... "Their language is in the patois of fraud"
> BURKE - Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1984.
>
> One of the many reasons why The Industry faces its end is its approach to
> language. We all know that they speak a Argot. What astonished me was to
> find that they no longer bother to master their own secret language. This
> was brought home to me during my sojourn in Chancery. A writ was served on
> me demanding £100,000 plus numerous further similar amounts. As
> litigant in
> person, I had the honour of numerous sittings before Master Weingarten, a
> Deputy High Court Judge, high up on the umpteenth floor in
> Chancery near the
> Aldwych. Now although W did not wear fancy dress, and in spite of his
> ridiculous title, he was very near to the top of The Industry.
>
> Protocol required that I should write out a series of facts about
> the case,
> and deliver them to my adversary. They would then agree some of the facts
> and dispute others, in writing. The idea is that this will save time when
> the case comes to court before the real (not deputy) judge, in full fancy
> dress.
>
> Odgers, the legal bible, is adamant that this document is not a
> defence. It
> is not my answer to the arguments of my adversary as to why I should give
> him £100,000 plus, and of course give far more to his and my lawyers. (My
> lawyers did not exist.) This document used to be described as "Pleading",
> already a misnomer. (Lord Woolf, in his interim report "Access to Justice"
> of June 1995, page 153, reverts to the archaic name "Pleadings".
> He lambasts
> judges and lawyers in general for failing to deal with this matter
> competently. He says that the basic function of pleadings has been lost
> sight of. Of course, we know that Pleadings, like everything
> else, now serve
> to maximise costs, and they do that very well.) However, today
> it is called
> a "Defence" although it is not a defence. Imagine my horror to find, later
> on, that Weingarten could not distinguish between a Defence and a defence.
> To be exact, he contradicted RSC Order 18, rule 7(1). Weingarten,
> a man near
> to the top of The Industry, was lost in the complexity of his own argot!
> However, I have since realised that judges are failed barristers, and so
> should not be expected to have too much competence in the language of the
> law. Fortunately, when he said I should have brought my arguments for not
> paying, rather than my outlining of alleged facts and agreed facts, I
> produced that for him as well. I was well prepared because I was
> Litigant in
> Person (as they say in argot), having no lawyers on my side to scupper me.
>
> A year after writing the previous paragraph, I found that another standard
> text, "Learning the Law" by Glanville Williams, pub. Stevens, London,
> eleventh edn. 1982, p20, has a contradictory version of what a
> "Defence" is,
> and also asserts that in this matter, terminology is different between
> Chancery and the Queen's Bench! This perfectly illustrates the linguistic
> shambles that is the law, leading one senior judge to say that even judges
> do not understand the jargon, and that if proper English were used, the
> financial savings would be massive. The confusion between
> Weingarten and me,
> or Weingarten's confusion, is typical of the shambles in every
> case at every
> stage, exquisitely maximising Costs.
>
> I noticed misuse of language earlier in the case, when the writ was first
> served on me. One section was entitled "AND I CLAIM", followed by
> allegations as to what I had said, what I had signed, where I had
> been, and
> so forth. Turn over the standard-form Writ, and you come to the next
> section, "AND I CLAIM", followed by a demand for £100,000 for
> this, £57,000
> more for that, £25,000 for the other. That is, the same phrase was used to
> describe the two main sections of the writ. The double used of that phrase
> to describe different items was confusing and damaging. This is one of the
> multifarious ways devised by The Industry to increase confusion and cost.
>
> Although Master Weingarten, the Deputy High Court Judge, had just
> said that
> the courts leaned over backward to help the litigant in person
> (me), he and
> my opposing barrister refused to explain the argot they were using in my
> presence. For instance, the opposing barrister referred to a long list of
> monetary demands being made on me, and divided them into two groups.
> Referring to one group, he said, "These claims fall". I asked what "fall"
> meant; whether they had to be dropped as insubstantial, or remained as
> strong. No reply, from him or from Weingarten. The trouble is,
> the whole of
> the legal industry is so enmeshed in obfuscating patois that they no more
> understand what is needed to ensure intelligible communication.
> Even if The
> Industry wanted to assist the litigant in person, which is patois for
> conducting one's own case, they would not know how to go about
> it. However,
> we know full well that The Industry has to ensure that litigants in person
> are very rare, and are almost always unsuccessful. In spite of this, The
> Industry is disturbed by the current increase in litigants in person, now
> running at 10% in the High Court. This increase is because, once a victim
> suspects that his own lawyers will probably scupper him, he will
> not want to
> face paying them to sabotage him. That is certainly my attitude, and the
> reason why for many years now, even though I had access to legal
> aid, I have
> conducted my own cases.
>
> The Industry patois has reached such chronic proportions that even lawyers
> realise that something has to be done. In The Times, wed6july94,
> "The senior
> civil judge in England and Wales is backing a report out today which says
> that millions of pounds could be saved in legal fees if statutes were
> written in plain English. Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the
> Rolls, says that
> even experienced judges sometimes cannot make sense of the law. ....The
> report, from the Plain English Commission, is calling for statutory legal
> jargon to be scrapped and the laws rewritten in clear English.
> Every new law
> should include a 'citizen's summary', enabling the main points to
> be grasped
> immediately." The commission was challenged by law-writers to produce a
> simpler, shorter version of an Act. The resulting, revised Act
> had 25% fewer
> words, and its sentences were a third shorter on average. The original Act
> included two sentences of more than 100 words each. Words such as
> 'offeror'
> and 'offeree' were replaced by 'seller' and 'buyer'.
>
>
>
> Why did trial proceed?
>
> The self-styled rape victim had told the court that she
> undressed, put on a
> nightshirt and G-string and went to sleep while David Warren, 19,
> sat on the
> bed, still dressed. He was still fully clothed, she said, when
> she awoke at
> 4am, and he got up to make toast for her.
>
> She denied encouraging him to make love to her. After eating the
> toast, she
> had slept again, but reawoke to find him caressing her stomach and kissing
> her. He removed his boxer shorts and guided her hand to his private parts,
> where she kept it for a few seconds.
>
> She did not resist his caresses but told him to stop when he
> climbed on top
> of her. When he penetrated her she started to cry but he told her it would
> be all right, she said. - Telegraph, 24 November 1994.
>
> She agreed that she did not fight off his advances and spent the
> rest of the
> night with him after they had sex. .... 'We stayed there and slept until
> about ten in the morning.' She called the police after discussing what had
> happened with friends the next day. - [The Times, page 3.]
>
> Without requiring defence counsel to address him on a submission
> that there
> was no case to answer, the judge directed the jury to clear Warren. -
> Telegraph.
>
> David's mother said: "The pressure of the case made him quit his course at
> Portsmouth University and he is now unemployed." Warren's solicitor said
> David had left university and found a job, but might lose it as a
> result of
> publicity given to the case. The alleged victim remains anonymous.
>
> The collapse of the trial of David Warren will lead to renewed questions
> about the Crown Prosecution Service's attitude to pressing ahead with
> apparently flawed rape cases [wrote Ben Felton in the Daily Telegraph].
>
> The case, which even the prosecution counsel agreed was of the "weakest"
> kind, follows others where the CPS has been accused of being too ready to
> bring rape cases to court with a level of evidence that would
> dissuade them
> from proceeding with any other kind of offence.
>
> There has been a series of high-profile trials where men accused of rape
> have been cleared after juries sided with their version of an incident of
> "date rape", leading to criticism of the CPS.
>
> A spokesman said last night: 'We view rape as a very serious
> offence but we
> use the same criteria on all cases to decide if there is a realistic
> prospect of conviction. There are no extra criteria. Our job is
> not to take
> dead certainties to court. It is to bring cases we think the court should
> hear and then it is for the court to decide.'
>
> However Lady Mallalieu, QC, a recorder, said she believed that
> the CPS still
> felt pressurised by women's groups and by media publicity to go ahead with
> prosecutions based on the evidence of one woman against one man.
>
> She said last night: 'They will deny it, but I am sure that when they get
> any kind of a sex case they are much more likely to say "We have
> to run this
> and let a jury decide".' - Daily Telegraph, 24th November 1994, page 3.
>
> The is clearly the same situation as that of a black man and a white woman
> in the Deep South a century ago. The Englishman today is a helot, lacking
> minimal civil rights, and the white/black apartheid of Southern USA has
> reappeared in today's Britain.
>
>
>
> Have you heard enough?
>
> "A jury took two minutes yesterday to clear a student of raping a kinky
> college girl with a fetish for rubberwear.
>
> Their verdict came after Judge Brian Appleby, QC, halted the
> trial and asked
> jurors: "Have you heard enough?"
>
> Trainee sculptor Ben Emerson, 21, who failed to complete his degree course
> because of the pressure of facing prosecution, slumped in the dock and
> sobbed when he was acquitted.
>
> The 20-year-old raven-haired girl he was alleged to have raped broke down
> and said: "This was a political experiment and it went wrong".
>
> The three-day trial at Leicester Crown Court ....
>
> She invited him to stay the night and suggested he massage her
> with baby oil
> [and have oral sex] as she lay naked on the bed equipped with chains. ....
> She showed him pornographic magazines ...." - Frank Curran, Daily Star,
> 1dec94.
>
> "Ben Emerson .... said: 'The trial was a political experiment and it went
> wrong.'
>
> Mr Carl Gaskill, prosecuting, told the court after the verdict: 'The
> decision whether to prosecute or not was clearly difficult and was
> considered at the highest level.'
>
> .... After the encounter the girl sought advice before making a
> complaint to
> police nine days later."
>
> - David Graves, Daily Telegraph, 1dec94.
>
> This three day trial provided rich pickings for all the lawyers involved.
> We, as taxpayers, paid for it via the Crown Prosecution Service.
> After three
> days, the judge, fearing outrage should the public realise who was paying
> for this farce, brought proceedings to a close.
>
> What I find so offensive is that these judges and courts, and the Crown
> Prosecution Service, all find the time and the public money to engage in
> these farces, but doggedly ignore the epidemic of perjury, bribery and
> forgery which swamps the same courts. Such a court will oust a
> man from his
> home on the basis of perjured affidavit in a ten minute secret hearing,
> giving him no recourse at any time in the future, when they
> promptly return
> to this kind of nonsensical, titillating 'rape' trial. The confused
> repetition of the idea that it was a political trial, allegedly
> said by both
> parties, should warn us about manipulation by radical feminists
> of gullible,
> ignorant, anti-social and venal lawyers - judges, barristers and
> solicitors - in our courts.
>
> In the tabloid "Today" on 2dec94, p6, under the headline "Rape. The law
> isn't working", Penny Wark said, "It has been suggested that
> these were test
> cases, brought to gauge reaction. Certainly they open up a
> disturbing debate
> about whether the existing law is adequate to cope with every
> case of rape."
>
> Let us now trace the stony path from the early depredations by Denning on
> the legal fabric, all the way to the grotesque denial of minimal civil
> rights to an Englishman in the rape cases.
>
>
>
> The Portsmouth Martyrdom
>
> A heavy budget campaign for the U.S. senate had vast resources.
> As a result,
> its TV advertising was heavy, glossy and sophisticated. The underfunded
> underdog resorted to a simple, crude stratagem. He came onto TV for very
> brief, cheap sessions, with the refrain, "Where's the beef?"
>
> The Portsmouth Martyrdom is inexplicable unless one holds to the refrain;
> "Where's the money?" Perhaps it would be better for me to exhort;
> Follow the
> money. Journalists and other commentators are constitutionally
> incapable of
> following the money.
>
> In Anglesey when I was young, foolish, ignorant girls persistently became
> pregnant. Local society often compelled the errant youth to marry
> the errant
> girl. The same was endemic in East Kent, where my relatives were
> involved in
> such unsubtle manoeuvrings.
>
> That was when the legal industry had not got going properly, and there was
> no radical feminist mythology for it to exploit. The young girls were
> foolish, lonely or calculating. The youths were foolish.
>
> Today the girl is innocent victim and the youth criminal predator. The law
> will avenge the one and punish the other, while at the same time
> feathering
> its own nest. However, the Portsmouth case got out of hand, and
> in spite of
> his loyalty to The Industry, the judge had to stop the case before the
> defence spoke one word. The prosecution barrister knew nothing of
> the case,
> and had never spoken to the alleged victim. Absurd cases can continue, and
> innocent men can go to jail in droves, but some shred of credibility must
> remain as a cover for the racketeering.
>
>
>
> Love's labours lost to the lunatic fringe
>
> A moral ambience has arisen that casts men as sexual wrongdoers, leaving
> them wide open to legal abuse, said Barbara Amiel in the Sunday
> Times on the
> 26th December 1994, reprinted here with the permission of the author.
>
> How was it for you, darling, hmmm? Good sex? Mediocre stuff? Or just plain
> rape? These days, making love can lead to the altar or the Old Bailey. He
> thinks she was aching for it, she thinks it was a crime. What has happened
> to love between the sexes?
>
> Sexual encounters that made news in 1993 include Angus Diggle,
> the solicitor
> convicted of the attempted rape of his fellow-solicitor and date for a
> Highland Ball after she invited him back to share a room till train-time.
> She took off everything except her panties, he took off everything except
> his glasses and cuffs. When she awoke he had left his sofa for her bed and
> was on top of her dutifully clad in a safer-sex condom. After a 15-second
> tussle, the rejected Diggle fell asleep on the floor. Such
> sangfroid led to
> his arrest and a three-year sentence.
>
> Student Austen Donnellan was told to submit to a university disciplinary
> hearing after charges of rape were brought against him by a
> fellow student.
> His accuser, who admitted to giving him passionate kisses,
> dismissed them as
> meaning nothing. She said she had been taken advantage of after
> falling into
> a drunken stupor on the way to her college room bed. Donnellan demanded a
> trial. Ten months later he was acquitted at the Old Bailey.
>
> Susan Gooch, 27, locked eyes with a stranger at a London restaurant and
> subsequently locked parts in a shop doorway and the tube train. After
> parting she cried "rape" and accused a co-worker at her office.
> She admitted
> to perverting the course of justice and escaped prison on the
> basis of "very
> moving" medical reports.
>
> What is the motivation for these kinds of charges of rape and why are
> charges being laid on a fact basis that is truly Alice-in-Wonderland? Last
> week, a North American gynaecologist was charged with sexual assault after
> he performed a standard examination requested by the patient and
> done in the
> presence of his nurse. The patient went home to brood. She had seen a look
> on the doctor's face as his gloved finger entered her. Also, didn't the
> gloved finger linger? Next day she went to the police and the
> gynaecologist
> was led handcuffed from his surgery.
>
> North American madness? Most people shrugged when American feminists like
> Andrea Dworkin and the lawyer Catherine MacKinnon defined all sexual
> congress between men and women as coercive, given society's
> "inherent power
> imbalance", not to mention a design fault in nature requiring, ugh,
> penetration. But the message behind this thinking - that all men are vile
> beasts - soon crossed the Atlantic and entered mainstream thought through
> the media and even government quangos. The ideas may have been slightly
> modified - as in the prose of the Equal Opportunities Commission
> - but under
> its euphemisms lurks the same message. Men exploit. Men can't be
> trusted. On
> this basis, feminists went about redefining our notions of marriage,
> courtship and sex.
>
> British law has been changed so it is now possible for a husband
> to rape his
> wife in an active marriage, leading to the situation in which love-making
> between husband and wife is wonderful on Tuesday morning and rape an hour
> later. Our schools teach pupils about the perils of "date-rape"
> (previously
> known as seduction). So-called "sexual harassment" rules have
> been set up to
> codify behaviour on a date. Employment tribunals of grown-up men and women
> listen to accounts of women undone by sexist jokes, as if females are the
> frail vessels of neo-Victorian times whose sensibilities require
> piano legs
> to be wrapped in muslin. Our home secretary proudly announced his proposal
> to end the obligatory caution to juries about the danger of convicting on
> uncorroborated evidence of rape - though corroboration never meant another
> witness, simply forensic evidence.
>
> When you establish such an ambience - in which men are at the mercy of
> social forces - you have entered the climate of show trials. It is rather
> like the second-rate movie scripts of the US Scottsboro period, when every
> liberal writer was turning out a story about a negro being accused by a
> Southern belle of rape. Because rape by a negro in those days would almost
> automatically carry the death sentence, Southern white women had
> tremendous
> power vis-à-vis black males. This sort of power has been extended to all
> women today vis-à-vis men, with the single difference, I suppose, that we
> can't actually get them hanged. And while very few Southern women
> exercised
> their power by sexually exploiting powerless negroes, similarly few women
> today sexually exploit our vulnerable males. But the minute you set up the
> ambience that gives people this power, there will always be a
> tiny minority
> who simply cannot resist.
>
> In the wee small hours of new year's eve of 1992, a young man took his Co
> Kilkenny sweetheart of five months from a disco party to a derelict mill.
> They lay down on his jacket for 45 minutes and had what the judge
> called "a
> high degree of intimacy". At the conclusion he had sexual intercourse
> without her consent. Later the boyfriend was told of his misdeed and was
> horrified. He apologised in person and in writing. When the judge
> gave him a
> suspended nine-year sentence, the girl-friend collapsed in shock on the
> shoulders of her mother and representatives of the local Rape
> Crisis Centre.
>
> Now the fact that I would not regard penetration by someone with
> whom I had
> had 45 minutes of hanky panky as a big deal does not make it
> incumbent upon
> anyone else to share this view. The girlfriend is entitled to view the
> culmination of the sexual act as a gross invasion of her privacy
> unless done
> with her specific intent. But it is unreasonable to ask people
> who take such
> a view of penetration - even with young men they clearly desire - to bring
> their own actions into line with this view. Men are not vibrators
> or lamps.
> A man has passions, physical needs and all the works that go with male
> sexuality. You cannot dally and then switch him off at whatever point in
> your mind you have decided not to cross.
>
> Men and women have differing sexual natures. Richard Dawkins in
> his book The
> Selfish Gene argues that the logical sexual strategy for the male is to
> impregnate as many women as possible to maximise his own genes.
> Since he is
> capable of creating a genetic survival possibility six times a day his
> sexual nature will be very different to that of the female who in
> her entire
> reproductive lifetime has at most 20 opportunities and more
> likely about 10.
> She will want selective impregnation. Now, clearly, the modern male living
> in Chelsea wants to behave better than this and the single female in her
> Battersea flat may prefer to be worse, but it takes a long time
> for nurture
> to catch up with nature.
>
> Different sexual natures are not an excuse for bad behaviour, only a
> guideline to sensible behaviour. Women want to be liberated and feel they
> can get drunk, undressed and ask a man to take them to bed and then change
> their minds, but this flies in the face of male sexuality. Yet
> all the onus
> for restraint is now on men: we women are wild, innocent little things who
> cannot restrain our appetites.
>
> The solution is not to make matters worse by, for example, extending
> anonymity to the accused male as well as the accusing female in sexual
> cases. The real remedy is to throw the whole ambience out of the
> window and
> take common-sense responsibility for our actions. Meanwhile, if I
> had a son
> I'd tell him this: in our matriarchal society, it is not sufficient merely
> to have the consent of a woman to sexual congress through her actions or
> words. The wise man will demand that she show a certificate from a
> psychiatrist that she is sane, a birth certificate to prove she is of age
> and will be sure to carry a portable Breathalyser. Only after you
> have proof
> of her sanity, sobriety age of consent and consent, may you have sexual
> relations with her. Andrea Dworkin and the EOC may still say that is not
> enough.
>
> [Daily Express, Saturday nov26, 1994, p5. Said by anonymous
> accuser of David
> Warren, whose case was thrown out by the judge {She stayed in bed with him
> for six hours after the 'rape'}; "Even if you have signed a contract
> consenting to sex you could decide halfway that you do not want
> it, and the
> man should abide by that." She has not had a boyfriend since....
> she has hit
> out at the decision of her own legal advisers to take the case to court.
> .... She no longer understood where she was with men, she said. ....
>
> "And if the jury had been left to make its own mind up I could also have
> accepted better the not guilty verdict." "I never spoke to the CPS or the
> prosecuting barrister. In the end another barrister stepped in at the last
> minute."]
>
>
>
> The Mafia and The Industry.
>
> @
>
> Comment on the State of the Nation generally skates on the surface. It is
> thought to be adventurous to assert that the legal system is
> betraying those
> enmeshed in it - litigants and accused, particularly Irish, or that the
> accountancy profession is ripping off its customers, as evidenced by the
> people assigned the task of rescuing the Maxwell pensioners themselves
> running off with £100 millions. Or it is pointed out that for all its
> propaganda, the accountancy profession failed to notice that Maxwell had
> stolen £500 millions from a company worth perhaps only three times that
> much, in spite of the accountants having taken vast fees for auditing the
> Maxwell companies over many years while he milked them unknown to the
> auditors. Or disgust is registered when a man is jailed for murder,
> exonerated years later, and the police refuse to look for another culprit.
>
> All this crying over spilt milk is well and good, but we need
> more. We need
> to concentrate, and to dig deeper. First of all, I have decided
> that for all
> their scandalous behaviour, the Accountancy profession, or the Civil
> Service, are not the leading actors in the dismemberment of our society.
> This role is taken by the legal profession. We need to
> investigate why legal
> professionals today are so venal that they have failed to notice when they
> destroy their very raison d'être. Why have they been so engrossed in
> inflating legal fees, for themselves and their co-extortioners, that they
> have not noticed that the source of the fees is rapidly drying up? After
> all, the supply relies on at least some faith remaining in the law. Today,
> since the law obviously brings no benefit whatsoever to anyone, it may
> disappear quite soon. As reported in The Times, 2dec94, Lord McCluskey, a
> Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland since 1984 and a former
> solicitor-general for Scotland, said; "The commonly articulated
> judgement is
> that the present system is failing to do a worthwhile job; .... it is
> desperately expensive, it is purposeless and pointless." In Henry Miller's
> play, "The Crucible", when a law court was installed in Salem, Mass., and
> proceeded to murder townsfolk wholesale and tear the social fabric apart,
> one actor said, "They have driven the court out of Andover." I
> particularly
> noticed this because I went to school in another town named Andover, in
> Hampshire, the school Denning attended. Some years ago I came to realise
> that the health of the town of Watford required that Watford
> County Court be
> closed. The same will be true of most towns in England, since these courts
> are today generally behave illegally, irresponsibly and destructively.
>
> The first step is to give an appropriate name to the legal profession and
> legal system, or legal fabric. This presents difficulties. We cannot say
> "system", because activity by lawyers and courts has now become
> more or less
> totally unsystematic. We cannot use the phrase "legal fabric", because the
> fabric is hopelessly torn. This led me to coin the phrase "legal
> industry".
> However, difficulties remain. Today's court officials, judges, barristers
> and solicitors have become so ignorant and contemptuous of law and legal
> procedures that they have to be described as "illegal", not legal. Lord
> Mackay has written to me to apologise for illegal activity by officials of
> the Watford County Court, but that is the norm, not the exception. Some of
> them are untrained and semi-literate. I think it is the Chief Clerk who,
> when I complained about the persistent bad spelling, appologised
> to me with
> a double pp! Mackay also apologised for his own admitted ignorance of the
> procedures that he is paid to enforce in the courts. If you spend a few
> hours reading law books, you will find yourself more expert in law than
> those shysters all who are engrossed in fee inflation and have no time to
> spare to achieve or maintain competence in the law, and in court
> procedures.
> We are left with the phrase "Illegal Industry". This is when I came to the
> name which, in the present tragic circumstances, is ideal. It is "The
> Industry". I was obviously led there by the fact that the earlier
> contender,
> "Illegal industry", smacks of the Mafia. The closest correlation
> is between
> the names "The Industry" and "The Firm", the latter being the
> title for The
> Mafia. So now we have it. This book discusses The Industry, and
> sets out to
> master its ramifications by comparing and contrasting it with the
> Mafia. The
> Industry means the legal professionals and their institutions, the courts,
> and the Law Society. On the fringe of The Industry is the House
> of Commons,
> packed with lawyer Members who rely on legal fees to maintain
> their current
> standard of living, including mistresses.
>
> No case going through the English courts today would survive
> through appeal
> in the European Court, should it get that far, because today, the English
> courts lack rudimentary legality, as is obvious to any
> non-masonic European
> judge. We are approaching crisis, when lawyer members of parliament and
> their cronies, seeing the torpedoing of their livelihood by European Court
> edicts, will feel forced to defend a disintegrating English "legal system"
> against Europe's strictures. When our MPs ask us to support them
> in defying
> the European Court, it is of the utmost importance that, with the help of
> the information in this book, we should side with Europe, however damaging
> that may be. We have to get through the critical shutting down of The
> Industry as quickly as possible, whatever the cost. It will not
> be reformed
> from within. The decay has gone too far for that.
>
> The intention of this book is to help victims of The Industry to
> predict the
> behaviour of lawyers, including their own. By understanding the real
> motivation of these destructive, ignorant rogues, the citizen will be in a
> better position to pre-empt them and reduce the massive damage they are
> inflicting. A number of contributing factors will be woven into the fabric
> of the model, including feminism, masonry and the career and social milieu
> of our judges.
>
> A major disadvantage for the litigant or suspect, is that he makes gross
> assumptions about the intentions and orientation of the lawyers
> who surround
> him. He assumes that his own solicitor and barrister is on his side, which
> is quite untrue. He assumes that the lawyers know more of the law than he
> himself does. He assumes that the concept of the rule of law is
> very much in
> the lawyers' minds. He assumes that the lawyers wish to avoid wrongful
> imprisonment, wrongful besmirching of his good name, unfair
> expropriation of
> his assets.
>
> The lawyers, trying to operate a baroque legal system much like the
> government of the Soviet Union when it collapsed, do not necessarily gain
> much financial profit. They claim that legal aid fees are too low. Lawyers
> are much too concerned about fees, or costs, to consider the precepts he
> thinks they have in the centre of their thoughts. As the system
> disintegrates further, each lawyer is also concerned to cover his back
> should the case go wrong. A case would have gone wrong if one victim felt
> insufficiently dirtied and so felt clean enough to carry his case
> on to the
> European Court, where all parties in the sordid English court
> would come in
> for criticism.
>
> The Moral Maze.
>
> We have to confront the fact that we all know apparently honest, public
> spirited lawyers, particularly some of those in the early stages of their
> legal careers. How can our cynical analysis square with such knowledge?
>
> Dostoevsky gives us the clue. A year before his death he was
> anxious to get
> down the most important message of his life. Calling his unwritten play a
> poem, "The Grand Inquisitor", he force-fitted it into his last, greatest
> novel, The Brothers Karamazov. His analysis of a great church administered
> at the top by atheists or the like maps perfectly onto the gimcrack, but
> surviving, moral maze that is The Industry, administered at the top by men
> who know that the law does not work, and replace a legal code by a moral
> code. Dostoevsky shows how honest, god-fearing priests lower down rub
> shoulders with cynical anti-Jesus cardinals who also have the good of
> society as their motivation - plus personal gain on the side. Similarly,
> cynical, racketeering crooks acting as senior judges and barristers above
> preside over better motivated, gullible, junior lawyers below.
>
> Our Grand Inquisitor is Lord Denning. Where the Grand Inquisitor says to
> Jesus; "We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon
> miracle, mystery
> and authority", Denning replaced our law with Morality. The
> church, and also
> our legal system, then lapsed into full-scale corruption. Throughout his
> sustained onslaught on our legal system, Denning probably
> remained moral, at
> least from his own narrow standpoint.
>
> In his old age he reached the clear conviction that .... he must
> .... accept
> lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and
> destruction, and
> yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are
> being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think
> themselves happy. .... .... And if only one such [selfless
> Denning] stood at
> the head of the whole army [of selfish lawyers] 'filled with the lust of
> power only for the sake of filthy gain' - would not one such be enough to
> make a tragedy? More than that, one such [selfless one] standing
> at the head
> is enough to create the actual leading idea of the Roman Church [or in our
> case of the rule of law] with all its armies and Jesuits [judges], its
> highest idea. I tell you frankly that I firmly believe that there
> has always
> been such a [selfless] man among those who stood at the head of the
> movement. Who knows, there may have been some such even among the Roman
> Popes. Who knows, perhaps the spirit of that accursed old man
> [Denning] who
> loves mankind so obstinately in his own way, is to be found even now in a
> whole multitude of such old men [= senior lawyers], existing not by chance
> but by agreement, as a secret league formed long ago for the
> guarding of the
> mystery, to guard it from the weak and the unhappy, so as to make them
> happy. No doubt it is so, and so it must be indeed. I fancy that
> even among
> the Masons there's something of the same mystery at the bottom ....
>
> "The mystery" is that the law does not work, and has been replaced by a
> moral code. The legal activity has no meaning, and serves the same purpose
> as the religious service, to gain prestige for the law, which operates
> elsewhere. Protection of the mystery is by various stratagems,
> including the
> dubbing of a too-successful litigant in person as "vexatious
> litigant", and
> his banning from the courts. Lower down, your lawyers will
> connive with the
> judges and against you to hide the fact of breakdown in your case, when it
> threatens to come to light.
>
> The "vexatious litigant" has seen through the fancy dress and
> fancy words in
> our courts, and is forcing the court to behave legally. The reaction of
> professional lawyers is similar to that of my schoolboy friend in our
> cricket match who, when we all said he had been bowled, replied that since
> he owned bat and ball, we could not impose our decision on him. When we
> insisted, he took his bat and ball home, and the game ended. This happens
> all the time in our courts, with the professional lawyers behaving like my
> friend who owned bat and ball. The reason why there are fewer so-called
> "vexatious litigants" than one would expect in our corrupt and
> disintegratin
> g courts is that the Industry has many more stratagems for
> blocking one who
> is getting close to forcing the court to enforce the law. A "Mary Bell"
> order was used to block Sara Keays, and yet another trick was
> used to block
> Tolstoy in his libel action. I was blocked by the court withholding
> documents that they were required to give to me, earning me an
> apology from
> the Lord Chancellor too late, years later. Illegally withholding
> documents,
> or falsifying documents, is a common ruse, often including the (useless)
> apology. Prankherd knows of further stratagems used by judges to block
> access to the law, and the Adsheads and others have proof of falsification
> of court transcripts by the courts.
>
>
>
> The Firm and The Industry compared.
>
> The Industry is a much greater threat to society than The Firm.
> The best way
> to approach this comparison is to think of the laundering of The Firm and
> its assets, so that it becomes legit. The Industry is already Legit, since
> it grew out of society itself, not out of outlaw criminality. In a sense,
> The Firm and The Industry are travelling the same path in opposite
> directions, as bribery, perjury, theft and other crimes by lawyers become
> more and more the rule in an increasingly criminalised legal 'profession'.
>
> The distinguishing feature of The Firm, which makes it
> permanently less of a
> threat to the survival of society, is that it is parasitic. It does not
> intend to modifying society. Mafia men meet Basil Bernstein's
> description of
> the working class, who survive within a hostile environment controlled by
> other classes, an environment that they do not fully understand,
> and do not
> need to understand. In contrast, the world view of The Industry is middle
> class in that they identify with the controllers of society. Thus The
> Industry is the Enemy Within, while The Firm is the much less dangerous
> enemy without.
>
> The Industry sees itself as regulating and even modifying
> society, while at
> the same time concentrating primarily on ripping off society. The
> fact that
> it has two probably incompatible roles means that it threatens
> society at a
> much deeper, more dangerous level. The mafia only seek to rip off society.
>
> Since the Enemy Within also controls the House of Commons, where
> so many MPs
> are professional lawyers, the British voter will be forced to ally with
> foreign power, the European Court, to wrest back his freedoms.
> Our position,
> as non-lawyer Englishmen, is similar to the population of Haiti, who used
> Clinton to retrieve their freedom from their own Mafia. Those who welcomed
> the American soldiers were not unpatriotic.
>
> The Police.
>
> The difficult factor to predict is the behaviour of the police. One would
> expect the police gradually to distance themselves from The Industry,
> creating a new situation where police will refuse to enforce
> court orders or
> do anything else at the beck of a discredited Industry. However,
> the masonic
> link would tend to prevent this. Perhaps 80% of Chiefs of Police and also
> 80% of High Court judges are Freemasons. It is unlikely, with the
> leaders of
> the two groups locked together in unholy masonry, that the police forces
> will very easily distance themselves from the (in)judicial process. It all
> depends on how strong the bond of the Brotherhood is.
>
> We have seen the growing disenchantment shown by the police over the
> increasingly bizarre and destructive behaviour of The Industry. The key
> stage occurs when the police more or less cease both to bring cases to the
> law that they despise, and also more or less refuse to enforce
> court orders.
> Their position is however difficult, hemmed in by mason-lawyers on the one
> side and mason-lawyer politicians on the other. It is significant
> that Paul
> Condon, Metropolitan Chief of Police, used a masonic term "Noble Cause
> Corruption" when he warned that disenchantment with the courts will drive
> police into the corrupt activity of framing known villains. We
> should assume
> that the police will play no useful role in the struggle to retrieve the
> country from the clutches of The Industry.
>
> The police have for years been uncooperative when I ask for information on
> the organisational and procedural links between police and courts.
>
>
>
> Legal Aid Lottery
>
> "A service that cost £353m in 1988 is expected to cost £1.6 billion this
> year, a sum divided equally between civil, criminal and matrimonial cases.
> ....
>
> "Beck, a Hungarian, cannot understand why hundreds of thousands of pounds
> will be spent from the public purse on a trademark tussle with
> his American
> former colleague.
>
> "The case, centred on a device to erase women's cellulite, will
> be fought in
> Britain only because he came here this year, avoiding creditors in several
> European countries .... 'It's the biggest farce that British taxes are
> having to be used on my survival. It's a charade,' said Beck this weekend.
>
> "Beck obtained legal aid after telling court officials he was 'penniless'.
> He did not have to mention, however, that he lives in a
> £1,500-a-month flat
> .... and spends £400 a month telephoning around the world."
>
> The Nottinghamshire beautician who claims he cheated her cannot afford to
> sue him, and cannot get legal aid.
>
> On the same page of The Sunday Times, 25sep94, Liz Lightfoot tells of the
> builder Cummins, (convicted of fraud against the state at the same time in
> another case,) who spent £142,000 of legal aid to pay his legal team to
> pursue the Adsheads, a family of hoteliers, for payment of a disputed
> roofing bill for £15,000. His high flying legal team won the case for him,
> and now the hotelier family is set to lose their hotel in order to pay the
> £167,000 plus their own smaller legal costs. [The Legal Aid fund
> reposessed
> their hotel in 1996.]
>
> When an Iranian worth tens of millions of pounds was recently
> granted legal
> aid to the tune of £5m or so, I was astonished that the discussion in the
> media ignored the destination of the money. Everyone seemed to think in
> terms of the money going to the Iranian. Actually, it went to racketeering
> barristers and solicitors, who managed to absorb millions of pounds while
> allegedly arguing about the sum of £35m. In order to invoice for
> that amount
> of money, they would have had to charge £50,000 per hour. At £5,000 per
> hour, the time spent, 1,000 man-hours, would have been impossible. They
> would have had to put a massive team of high priced lawyers onto the case,
> all at the same time. This was a typical example of the way the numbers do
> not add up in a scam by The Industry. The case involved foreigners and
> foreign argument. The Industry merely used their client as a
> stooge to help
> it to transfer millions of pounds of Legal Aid money into English lawyers'
> pockets.
>
> The Protection Racket
>
> Lord Mackay has apologised to me because officials of Watford County Court
> illegally tampered with court files. Worse, I have reports of
> falsification
> of court transcripts in courts far distant from each other around the
> country. Mackay also apologised to me because the court sabotaged
> my appeal
> by illegally withholding key documents from me for a period running into
> years.
>
> The innocent who finds himself enmeshed in the courts, whether by way of
> divorce or otherwise, will be much better able to cope with his
> situation if
> he hears an alternative view as to what the courts today in England really
> represent. He certainly must get rid of any idea that they are about the
> rule of law and the enforcement of justice. However, whether they are now
> merely running protection rackets for the highest payer is a matter of
> judgement. A similar situation in Russia, which had an evolving
> mafia in the
> same way as our legal industry is evolving into a mafia, will
> illustrate the
> problem when trying to make this judgement.
>
> Arkady Vaksberg, in his 1991 book, The Soviet Mafia, pub. Weidenfeld and
> Nicholson, describes what happened when the threat of summary execution by
> Stalin receded. Government officials, particularly those in the highest
> positions, now had a future to provide for. They set to work to line their
> own pockets. Breznev was the worst crook of them all. However, low level
> communists and government officials would have been insulted at the
> suggestion that they were part of a mafia. By 1991, the whole of
> Russia was
> riddled with corruption, and the main problem was to get the money out of
> the country rather than to generate more of it by further bribery. Massive
> money-laundering schemes were widespread.
>
> Whereas the trigger which created the Russian mafia was the
> disappearance of
> fear of execution, in England the trigger was Thatcherite
> self-interest and
> her assertion that Society did not exist. This stripped away the
> moderating
> idea that the legal industry performed a public service. At that
> point, the
> criminal, protection-racket element, which had always been part
> of the legal
> industry, was validated and completely took over. However, low
> level lawyers
> still do not realise this, and high level lawyers hide themselves from the
> obvious fact that their activities are a threat to society and its legal
> fabric. In his novel "The Trial", Franz Kafka explains how the
> lower levels
> in a legal system can believe they are working towards justice
> and the rule
> of law, while at the same time the higher officials are totally
> corrupt. In
> "The Castle", Kafka gives more insight into the interplay of self-interest
> and fear which caused the English Legal system to degenerate into a mafia.
> Although he died before he could give us the full story, the
> outline that he
> did give us makes chilling reading for one who has become entangled in
> today's legal "system".
>
> Protection rackets masquerading as law had always existed.
> Traditionally, a
> big payer could use the courts to delay enforcement of a contract against
> him for many years, or for ever if the little man, his adversary,
> ran out of
> money to pay matching legal fees. To this was added a new racket, to use
> penniless clients to get access to the rapidly expanding Legal Aid Fund.
> However, the third protection racket concerns us most because of the grave
> damage that it inflicts on society. This third is the offer by lawyers to
> confiscate all the current and future assets and income of a divorced man
> and give most of it to the wife, while retaining a fraction as Costs.
>
> Whereas the true mafia 'dip their beak', creaming off some of the profit
> from a business they are 'protecting', today's lawyers know no such
> restraint, and destroy everything they come into contact with.
> This will be
> their downfall. Today, an English lawyer is very willing to cause £100,000
> of damage in order to get a mere £2,000 of costs for himself. It is this
> failure to grasp the scale of what they do which will shut down
> the English
> legal system.
>
> The judge is in cahoots with barrister and solicitor to maximise costs
> because of the masonic link and because he used to be a barrister himself.
> But more powerfully, he is usually even now a barrister or
> solicitor serving
> as a judge part-time because in his real occupation he has failed to
> generate enough costs to keep his wife in the manner to which she feels
> entitled. Barristers serving as part-time judges even litter the Appeal
> Court in the Strand. Simon Shetreet, in his book "Judges on Trial", p24,
> says that temporary judges are objectionable and also widespread,
> but he is
> out of date when he says that the number of Deputy High Court Judges is
> negligible. He wrote decades ago. In "The Search for Justice",
> pub. Sceptre
> 1994, p46, Joshua Rosenberg writes; "In the spring of 1993 more work was
> being done by deputies in the Queen's Bench Division in London
> than by High
> Court judges. Except in emergencies [this] must be quite wrong.... as they
> do not have the same measure of judicial independence as those appointed
> full-time."
>
> The Beeching Commission said that temporary judicial appointments
> should be
> made only 'in a rare emergency'. Little wonder that costs go through the
> roof where two or three lawyers of various kinds are gathered
> together in a
> court-room, and that there is Costs in the midst of them!
>
>
>
> Beware this bonanza for lawyers
>
> by Paul Johnson Daily Mail, 15aug95, p8.
>
> In the run-up to this autumn's key Cabinet meetings which will decide
> whether we get massive tax cuts in 1996 or not, two unlikely bruisers are
> squaring up for battle.
>
> On the right is the mild-sounding, soft-spoken Lord Chancellor,
> Lord Mackay,
> a Scotsman of old-style manners and bearing. On the left is Peter Lilley,
> self-effacing and even more softly-spoken Social Security Secretary. Not
> much of a scrap, you may say.
>
> In fact, the issue they are fighting about is hugely important for
> taxpayers - and still more important in its long-term implications.
>
> The point at issue can be put simply: is Britain to become a litigious
> society like the U.S. - but with the further disadvantage that a huge
> proportion of its costs will be met by you and me?
>
> Lord Mackay is not exactly the spokesman for lawyers. That title, strictly
> speaking, goes to his colleague the Attorney General, who is
> ex-officio Head
> of the Bar. But Mackay is the nearest we have to a minister of
> justice, and
> clearly the interests of the legal profession come high in his priorities.
>
> Battle
>
> Mackay seems particularly attached to the solicitors, on whose behalf he
> fought a significant battle to give them access to the higher
> courts. That,
> naturally, annoyed the barristers, who had their monopoly threatened. Ever
> since then, he has been doubly reluctant to tread on their toes.
>
> He hopes to do both solicitors and barristers a favour by putting
> forward a
> plan to grant legal aid to people litigating at industrial,
> social security
> and immigration tribunals. That will involve creating a gigantic financial
> cornucopia financed entirely by the taxpayer and tipping its glittering
> contents in the direction of the entire legal profession.
>
> It is a long time since we have been threatened with such a
> morally, legally
> and administratively reprehensible proposal. The entire system of
> legal aid,
> once a meagrely-doled-out help to the very poor, has
> systematically expanded
> in recent decades - especially under the generous ministrations
> of Mackay -
> into a multi-billion-pound drain on the Treasury.
>
> Dodgy
>
> Any pretence that it is to the poor has long since been abandoned. The
> biggest beneficiaries among litigants have been dodgy businessmen, often
> foreigners, some of whom cost taxpayers millions.
>
> But the main object of the system is, of course, aid to the legal
> profession, which it subsidises by more than £1.5 billion a year. The bulk
> of the taxpayers' cash flows into solicitors' offices, but a large and
> growing number of barristers make £100,000-plus a year apiece. All the key
> decisions on who gets aid are ultimately taken by lawyers.
>
> Mackay claims he is anxious to reform this iniquitous system and
> produced a
> Green Paper three months ago proposing changes. But his plan to extend
> eligibility for legal aid to those appearing before tribunals shows he is
> not very serious about saving money.
>
> This last proposal is particularly disgraceful because tribunals were
> introduced in many cases as an informal alternative to litigation in the
> courts. They were designed as places where ordinary men and women
> could put
> their case before panels of laymen and women in an atmosphere of common
> sense shorn of the intimidating procedures and jargon lawyers love.
>
> Other tribunals were set up as a concession to foreigners objecting to our
> administrative procedures, especially over immigration.
>
> But the lawyers have been infiltrating these courts for some time as
> litigants have found that it pays to have professionals finding ways of
> reinterpreting the rules, or bending them. In response, firms and
> government
> departments whose decisions are challenged in tribunals have had to pay
> lawyers to defend the rules.
>
> So far, however, litigation at tribunals has not got out of
> control because
> legal aid is not available, and thousands of cases are settled
> with minimal
> or no legal representation.
>
> But the lawyers, who regard litigation without them as a crime against
> nature, have been banging on the tribunal doors for 20 years, demanding to
> be let in on legal aid briefs. Mackay is considering flinging the
> doors wide
> open so the lawyers can swarm in and take over.
>
> The pressure has been particularly strong from solicitors. In the
> Eighties,
> they got 60 per cent of their income from conveyancing, but they have been
> badly hit by the slump in house prices and still more by the shrinking
> number of homes changing hands. Some firms, to their consternation, are
> earning less than they were five years ago.
>
> Waste
>
> Extending legal aid to tribunals would help to keep solicitors in
> the style
> of life to which they have become accustomed. But it would be a
> devastating
> blow not just to taxpayers but to the budgets of various ministries,
> including the Home Office and, above all, the Department of
> Social Security.
>
> They, too, would be obliged to fight many more actions, employ many more
> lawyers - including fancy-priced barristers - and waste vast quantities of
> their officials' time.
>
> One of the scandals of the existing legal aid system is that it
> is producing
> drawn-out cases in which both sides - businessmen accused of
> wrongdoing and
> the state as prosecutor - are funded by taxpayers, often by as much as
> several million pounds each. In legally-aided tribunals, this would become
> the norm.
>
> That is why Peter Lilley is taking up the case on behalf of the
> hard-pressed
> taxpayer.
>
> At a time when he is doing everything he can to cut the
> grotesquely inflated
> Social Security budget by denying relief to fraudulent claimants - a high
> proportion of them recent immigrants or foreigners arriving as 'social
> security tourists' - he sees Mackay's plan as a hostile act which will not
> only cost his department a fortune in extra legal aid bills, but will make
> pursuit of tricksters and organised fraud rings far more difficult.
>
> Other ministers should line up behind Lilley - the opportunities to sue
> government about almost anything grow daily and the wider the availability
> of legal aid, the more actions all departments will face.
>
> And Tory backbenchers, scared for their seats and anxious to get something
> in the way of popular tax cuts in the pipeline, should back
> Lilley, too, as
> noisily as they know how.
>
> After the mess it contrived to make over taxing share options, this is one
> financial trap the Government must at all costs avoid.
>
>
>
> The Industry targets the Hotel.
>
> It began at as an everyday dispute over an unpaid bill. It ended with an
> ordinary family set to lose its home and business in a graphic example of
> the inequities of the legal aid system.
>
> The tale began in 1986 when Gerald and Eva Adshead decided to repair the
> roof on Bennetston Hall, their country house hotel at the heart
> of the Peak
> District in Derbyshire. They hired Martin Cummins, a Stockport
> builder they
> had used before, to carry out the work.
>
> Cummings finished the job in March 1987, but the Adsheads said
> the work was
> defective and disputed the bill of £15,000. The following
> January, with the
> issue still unresolved, Cummins issued a High Court writ in Manchester
> demanding a settlement.
>
> The Adsheads, unable to afford lawyers, opted to represent themselves but
> lost the case. Cummins claimed legal aid, hired a legal team headed by QC,
> and was awarded £26,000 - the original repair cost, interest and "extras".
>
> The Legal Aid Board, after a failed appeal by the Adsheads, has sent the
> hoteliers a bill for £142,000 - nearly 10 times the cost of the original
> amount in dispute. When the Adsheads were unable to pay, the board put a
> charge on their property. Had Cummins lost, the board would have picked up
> his costs.
>
> What makes the case so bizarre is that Cummins, midway through the legal
> battle, was convicted of fraud at Stockport magistrates court
> after claiming
> invalidity benefit while clambering about on Bennetson Hall.
>
> "Social security investigators knew he was claiming benefit while
> working on
> our roof," said Eva Adshead, 45, "But legal aid continued to fund him even
> after he admitted five charges of benefit fraud."
>
> Cummins, 58, said he regretted claiming benefits while working on
> the hotel.
> "I was ill at the time and working in a supervisory capacity, but it was
> wrong of me to work while claiming benefit. I told the court I
> was sorry and
> have repaid every penny," he said.
>
> Such contrition is of little help to the Adsheads. "We've lost
> our business
> and now could lose our home," said Eva. "Once the lawyers got involved,
> costs got out of hand."
>
> Nor could she explain why a man stealing from the state with one hand was
> given thousands of pounds more back in the other. - Liz Lightfoot, The
> Sunday Times, section 1, page 12, 25sep94. Published with the
> permission of
> the author.
>
> The Legal Aid fund is a float which The Industry draws on to target major
> assets owned by innocent third parties. The builder was an
> irrelevant pawn,
> and his claim against the hoteliers was an irrelevant pretext to cover the
> lawyers' assault on the hotel. The beauty of this racket becomes
> clear if we
> watch the money, something which commentators fail to do. Whereas
> the money
> to fund the lawyers' attack on the wealthy hoteliers initially
> came from the
> Legal Aid Fund, currently paying out £1.5 billion per year, this
> represented
> only a temporary loan to the Industry, merely ensuring that the lawyers on
> both sides of the case could not lose. If all went well, the
> money would be
> recouped by the Legal Aid Fund from the hoteliers, so that the Fund would
> not remain out of pocket. The only important flow of money would
> be from the
> hoteliers to the lawyers, that is, to the Industry.
>
> The key point to remember is that, the Legal Aid fund being a bottomless
> pit, the lawyers manipulating the builder could continue to appeal, or
> contest appeals, through higher courts until the victims ran out
> of money or
> nerve and had to settle, including paying the costs of both sides. Notice
> that lawyers' costs, not the much smaller sum originally in dispute, were
> the issue.
>
> As The Industry grows, the Legal Aid Fund is becoming too
> limiting. That is
> why Mackay is pushing through the idea of "Contingency Fees", where the
> Industry directly partakes of financial orders made by the court to its
> client, the payment to vary with the amount awarded by the court.
> The client
> bears no risk whatsoever. Such a system, where the lawyer takes his fees
> from the court's award to his client rather than up front regardless of
> whether his client wins or loses, means that lawyers will
> speculatively use
> the likes of the builder as pawns, themselves taking perhaps 90% of the
> final award from the court, should there be any. Lawyers will fill their
> spare office hours with such speculative adventures.
>
> Contingency fees are already permitted in England in tribunal cases. The
> floodgates will really open when Mackay gets them allowed in the
> courts, at
> which point anyone with visible and immovable wealth can be expected to be
> targetted with fabricated claims by the Industry using poor, malleable
> clients as claimants. This is hardly distinguishable from
> "protection money"
> exacted by The Firm.
>
>
>
> The Ruling Model.
>
> The victim (you) is put at an enormous disadvantage because of the
> continuous disinformation to which he is subjected. Lingering assumptions
> that The Industry embraces such concepts as Justice and the Rule
> of Law lead
> the unsuspecting victim to the slaughter, and mystification and resentment
> come too late to save him. This applies equally to civil and to criminal
> law. Justice and the Rule of Law are not factors in the legal Industry
> today. Remember, by The Industry I mean the lawyers, the courts, the court
> officials and all their trappings. I include the Top Dogs, the Lord
> chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, but not necessarily the
> politicians. The
> reason why the situation has deteriorated so far is that politicians are
> deeply infiltrated by The Industry, where perhaps 35% of members of
> Parliament are barristers relying on the extortions of The Industry. We
> cannot expect help from the Commons. However, the Poll Tax is only one of
> the latest incidents where it was shown that a gang of shysters entrenched
> in Parliament cannot drive the country too far into error and
> racketeering.
> Earlier examples are Ponting and Spycatcher, when an entrenched government
> with a large majority lost control of the levers of State power. In the
> present case, the process will be more painful because firstly the police
> have to distance themselves from The Industry, and their common
> brotherhood
> in Freemasonry will make it difficult for them to do so. However, the
> masonic bond does snap when the situation is extreme, as is today's attack
> on all levels of society by The Industry. In the last resort,
> senior masonic
> Police will back away from The Industry in order to save their
> own skins. An
> early example of this future schism is the Wimbledon Common murder. The
> judge threw out the case and criticised the police, but for a
> long time the
> police refused to look for another suspect. That is the way it will go.
> Police will stop enforcing court orders, and the long arm of The Industry
> will be severed. For this to happen, it will not be necessary for
> financial
> institutions like banks to ignore The Industry and its edicts. The
> Industry's loss of influence with the police will suffice, and nobody will
> bother to attend courts any more.
>
> What model should the innocent victim apply to the present
> Industry when he
> is sucked into the quagmire, and finds himself involved with courts,
> affidavits, and the rest?
>
> Assets held in trust.
>
> All your assets are held in trust for The Industry, which
> controls society.
> However, the inability of The Industry to absorb all of the assets of all
> citizens leads them to limit their avarice to those who, for one reason or
> another, present themselves at the door of The Industry, or are dragged
> there by police or spouse.
>
> The Industry itself maximises this number of victims. For instance, any
> agreement made between divorcing husband and wife without cost-generating
> commotion in the courts is torn up by The Industry. This is a perfect
> example of a protection racket. You may not trade without my
> permission, and
> without paying my fees.
>
> The reason why The Industry is collapsing is that it failed to
> adjust to an
> escalating divorce rate. Like the predator trying to swallow too large a
> victim, it should have evaded divorce when it was obviously
> becoming too big
> a fish to handle. Alternatively, The Industry should have set to to
> streamline its procedures, developed over the centuries to maximise
> complexity and cost. However, the pomp, arrogance, myopia and venality of
> upper echelons in The Industry made it unable to step back from
> the brink of
> disaster. Also, the fact that The Industry is not a conspiracy,
> but only an
> evolved conspiracy, made it impossible for it to evade the
> disaster to come,
> as come it has.
>
> Courts were bungling all divorce cases, except from the point of view of
> maximising fees, both from the point of view of assets of the marriage and
> of children of the marriage. The setting up of the Child Support
> Agency was
> an attempt to reduce the scandal so that The Industry might survive.
> However, since the Thatcher/Major government was incompetent, it set up an
> unworkable agency which is now self-destructing. The Industry has
> a dilemma,
> because it cannot admit to itself or to anyone else that it is
> incapable of
> handling these matters in any way rationally or legally. Before the CSA,
> perhaps only 25% of parents cut off from their children were supplying any
> money to their truncated family. The Industry was doing nothing
> about this.
> It had bitten off more than it could chew, in its self-ordained ponderous
> masticating way. This is because the question of maintenance is
> complex, and
> The Industry, for historical reasons, had developed the most inefficient
> systems possible for every situation. In the case of child
> maintenance, the
> last straw of real complexity, laid on top of spurious complexity
> developed
> by The Industry, broke the camel's back. The Industry did not
> function when
> it came to child maintenance, for all its huffing and puffing.
>
> I have found that in all English courts at all levels the procedure for
> doing anything is the most inefficient procedure that could possibly be
> devised. Examples are outlined elsewhere in this book.
>
>
>
> The Queen's Croquet Ground.
>
> Today, the litigant is enmeshed in a game on the lines of the
> croquet match
> in Alice in Wonderland.
>
> The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her
> flamingo: she
> succeeded in getting its body tucked away, comfortably enough, under her
> arm, with its legs hanging down, but generally, just as she had
> got its neck
> nicely straightened out, and was going to give the hedgehog a
> blow with its
> head, it would twist itself round and look up into her face, with such a
> puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out laughing:
> .... ....
> the game was in such confusion that she never knew whether it was her turn
> or not. .... .... By the time she had caught the flamingo and brought it
> back, the fight was over .... "But it doesn't matter much," thought Alice,
> "as all the arches are gone from this side of the ground."
>
> Obviously Carroll had been in courts of law, and his court scene
> at the end
> of "Alice in Wonderland" is true to life. My reaction, after many years in
> the courts, is the same as Alice's;
>
> "Who cares for you?" said Alice (she had grown to her full size by this
> time). "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
>
> Remember that the sanctions in Alice in Wonderland were severe; "Off with
> his head" on every second page. Such bullying, as from our
> courts, has to be
> confronted. Since we all have contempt for today's courts, including Lord
> Woolf in his 1995 Interim Report, the sanction 'Contempt of Court' becomes
> ridiculous, and loses its power to intimidate. One who fails to show
> Contempt of Court is out of touch with the times.
>
> Rest assured that, should the game go too far in a man's favour,
> there will
> be a flash of light, and the (Wizard of Oz) Good Fairy will appear, change
> the rules, and re-adjust the score in favour of the lawyers and
> their fees.
> Probably Barry Worrall, who went to the European Court and gave
> up, will say
> that this applies to the European Court as well. Judge Pickles says that
> lawyers hang together, and probably this applies to foreign lawyers.
>
> Throughout Bleak House (1852-3) Dickens makes a sustained attack on the
> absurdities on the archaic court system - something he knew about
> first hand
> .... .... the decay and corruption he saw at the heart of England.
>
> 'The Lawyers have twisted it into such a state of bedevilment that the
> original merits of the case have long disappeared from the surface of the
> earth. It's about a Will, and the trusts under a Will - or it was, once.
> It's about nothing but Costs, now. We are always appearing, and
> disappearing, and swearing, and interrogating, and filing and
> cross-filing,
> and arguing, and sealing, and motioning, and referring, and reporting, and
> revolving about the Lord Chancellor and all his satellites, and equitably
> waltzing ourselves off to dusty death, about Costs. That's the great
> question. All the rest, by some extraordinary means, has melted away.'
>
> - Charles Dickens, Bleak House, ch8, p87.
>
>
>
> Pelling
>
> Dr. and Mrs. Pelling proceeded towards divorce in the usual way. However,
> when it came to 'taxing', which is the legal brogue for calculation and
> charging of costs, a hiccough occurred. Mrs. Pelling objected to
> the way her
> lawyers had wantonly wasted money. Both Pellings asked that the
> 'taxing' be
> held in open court. This was refused, and the Pellings boycotted the
> hearing. Dr. Pelling appealed, and the appeal court planned to hear the
> appeal in secrecy. However, twenty of us blundered into the
> court, where Dr.
> Pelling and a barrister representing Mrs. Pelling's solicitors, squared up
> for action. Mrs. Pelling, while supporting her husband's action, did not
> attend. Neither did her solicitors, leaving one barrister on his own to
> fight for the money wasters.
>
> The first matter to arise was Dr. Pelling's request that the
> appeal against
> the secret hearing be held in open court. After two or three hours of
> wrangling, the Appeal Judge, who was a barrister standing in as judge part
> time, rejected his request. However, Pelling was granted leave to appeal
> against the decision of the appeal judge, to hear the appeal against
> secrecy, in secret.
>
> A few days later, the appeal against the decision over holding the initial
> appeal in secrecy, came before the law lords. They rejected the appeal.
> Pelling, having at last exhausted all recourse in England, in
> trying to get
> a public hearing for the discussion of his wife's lawyers' scandalous
> wasting of money, could now proceed to the European Court.
>
> The case to be brought before the European Court is to demand that where
> taxing is concerned, that is, when judges (including stand-in barristers)
> and their barrister and solicitor colleagues are carving up the clients'
> money (and also ripping off the legal aid fund), their dirty
> activities must
> face the light of day.
>
> In a later Pelling Appeal Court hearing on 16 May 1996,
> Butler-Sloss and two
> other judges including Thorpe, who himself had infiltrated further secrecy
> into our courts, were temporarily fazed by Pelling's trenchant argument,
> originating from Eugen Hockenjos, that "expert" witnesses in our secret
> courts were accountable no no-one. They work to undisclosed, probably
> discredited, social theories. However, before they deliver their reserved
> judgement, having had time to reflect on the disastrous
> implication for our
> ignorant, incompetent judges of open courts, they will close
> ranks again and
> keep our courts secret. The intellectual shallowness of our judiciary was
> frequently demonstrated that day, for instance when Pelling told B-S, the
> brightest of the three judges, that her gagging order was illegal.
>
> From the point of view of lawyers, the result is entirely
> satisfactory. They
> have no fear of a decision against secrecy by the European Court in five
> years' time. By then, they must suspect that there will be little left of
> the fabric of English law anyway.
>
> The brogue for secret court hearings is "in chambers". These
> secret raids on
> the legal aid fund bear some computation. There are fewer than 100,000
> lawyers in this country. Some are employed by companies, and do
> not rob the
> legal aid fund. But even assuming that all lawyers shared in the
> racket, the
> legal aid fund for divorce provides lawyers in this country an average of
> £2,300 per year. Add to this the criminal legal aid fund, giving
> lawyers an
> average of some £4,000 p.a. However, we must not forget the full
> civil legal
> aid fund, which includes the money for family law, and currently runs to
> £1,500 millions per year, or £15,000 p.a. for every lawyer in the country.
> With the criminal legal aid, this provides an average of £19,000
> per lawyer
> in the country directly out of the public purse. The situation is
> completely
> out of hand, with legal aid running at four times the level of only four
> years ago.
>
> In his book "Judges", pub. OUP 1987, David Pannick, a barrister and Fellow
> of All Souls, Oxford, wrote;
>
> Judicial mavericks will always exist. But the high standards displayed by
> most judges ensure that the judiciary has little to fear from greater
> openness and accountability, it has everything to gain in terms of a more
> widespread understanding and appreciation of its distinction. The unique
> virtues of the English judiciary would not be threatened if its
> members were
> brought out of the self-imposed seclusion and into the sunlight
> where their
> performance could be more effectively assessed. In addition, the greater
> publicity might reveal some room for improvement in one or two judges. The
> case for reform of judicial administration does not depend on the merit or
> demerit of the individual holders of office. Judicial administration is
> important because judges perform a vital and difficult function of
> government under the rule of law. Because judges are part of government,
> acting on our behalf, we are entitled to require them to abandon their
> priesthood and to present their activities for assessment by laymen. Any
> aspects of judicial administration which create barriers between the legal
> system and the community it serves need justification in a democratic
> society. In considering these issues, it is important to
> remember, above all
> else, that judges are fallible human beings. (p16)
>
> Judicial foibles are of interest because they reveal the reality
> behind the
> mask of objectivity presented in court. No one who has had any
> dealings with
> the law would dispute that the personality and interests of the judge
> vitally affect the way in which he decides the case, as to style and as to
> substance. It is a dangerous 'myth that, merely by putting on a .... robe
> and taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and
> strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking
> machine'. (p26)
>
> Those of us who have acted on our own behalf - the brogue being
> "litigant in
> person" - will know how disgraceful is the behaviour of lawyers,
> judges and
> barristers, in today's secret courts. Denning's fears were well grounded.
>
> The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thinkers says that Lord Denning "chose to
> return [demote himself] to the Court of Appeal as master of the Rolls in
> order to exercise a greater influence on the development of law." He also
> was instrumental in appointment and promotion of judges, so that today's
> judges are generally Denning creatures. Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the
> Supreme Court (Chancery Division), on page 117 of his book "Lord Denning",
> pub. Weidenfield & Nicholson 1991, says that they act in secret in ninety
> per cent of high court work.
>
> Denning said courts hearings dealing with children must also be held in
> public. I myself told Dewar, the shadow of Secretary of State
> Peter Lilley,
> my M.P., that if the courts were held in public, the number of charges of
> sexual abuse in divorce proceedings would drop by 90%.
>
> In his biography of Lord Denning, p117, Edmund Heward wrote unmistakably
> about secret courts..
>
> "Denning was a good friend of the Press, believing that the
> reporter was the
> watchdog of justice. He said that, so long as newspapers do not impute
> improper motives, they have full freedom to criticise magistrates and
> judges. Speaking in Adelaide in 1967 he criticised the provisions of the
> Criminal Justice Bill, which prohibited full reporting of criminal
> proceedings in the Magistrates Courts. He said: 'Every court
> should be open
> to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the essentials of
> justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is
> on trial to
> see that he does his job properly.' Again he once said: 'Reporters are
> there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave
> themselves. Children's courts should also be open. Names should
> be kept out
> but the public should know what happens to the child and
> proceedings should
> never be conducted behind closed doors.' This does not happen in the High
> Court, even today. Proceedings about the custody, care and control, access
> and maintenance of children are held in private. Ninety percent of High
> Court work is done privately, in chambers, by Masters and Registrars.
> Speaking on the radio in the 1960s Denning said:
>
> 'Somehow I believe, in the words of old Jeremy Bentham, that in
> the darkness
> of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong. And if things are really done
> in public you can see that the judge does behave himself, the
> newspapers can
> comment on it if he misbehaves - it keeps everyone in order.'
>
> Denning believed that all legal proceedings should be held in public:
>
> 'It is of first importance that all proceedings should be held in
> public and
> this includes the delivery of judgements together with the
> reasons for them.
> This is so that everyone who wishes to do so can come into court and hear
> what takes place: and also that the reported cases can be taken down by
> reporters for their own use.'"
>
>
>
> Lord Denning
>
> Prior to Lord Denning, judges set out to interpret the law
> correctly. If the
> law was archaic, a judge would still enforce it, thereby putting
> pressure on
> Parliament to enact new, reformed, law. In the case of criminal law, the
> judge would rely on the fact that the Crown could always grant a pardon.
> Judges would call for the granting of a pardon even as they enforced what
> had after many years begun to prove inequitable law.
>
> Denning changed all that. His interest was in ensuring fairness
> for everyone
> who came before him. He felt, and said, that he was entitled to
> reinterpret
> the law so that it would be more just, more in line with the newly
> prevailing public opinion. He sowed the wind, and, as other senior judges
> feared, we now reap the whirlwind, with Lord Justice Taylor saying on TV
> that the law responds to public opinion.
>
> Denning already had a chivalrous attitude to women, very much the attitude
> shown by James Pickles;
>
> "When a woman stands in the dock at a crown court it is usually because of
> her association with one or more men. (I except shoplifting.) Brothel
> offences are obvious cases. A woman who is up for burglary probably got
> involved by trying to ingratiate herself with a man or because of feeling
> loyal to him. It is rare to find a woman planning a burglary and
> doing it on
> her own or with another woman. Similarly with handling stolen goods; the
> initiative usually comes from a man. Women are not as hard, aggressive or
> predatory as men. They are more sensitive of others' feelings. A woman who
> gets on to drink and drugs often does so because her relationship
> with a man
> has gone wrong. The male quest for conquest, sensation and change is more
> likely to cause unhappiness than the female quest for affection, children
> and a stable home. But some women want more than that now."
>
> Denning was concerned about women being driven out of their homes as a
> result of divorce. He made new law as a result. His technique was to
> massively expand the role of Equity in order to subvert the law
> of the time.
> This set the precedent for the inroads made on the law later on by the
> radical feminists. First they imposed a false myth onto society
> of woman the
> victim. The precedent of Denning then opened the floodgates for
> Equity to be
> used again and again to change the law in favour of stripping the divorced
> man and also the child of all assets, civil rights and respect,
> in favour of
> the alleged victim mature woman, in whose favour the false propaganda was.
>
> ".... Progressive thinkers would appear to prefer a form of social therapy
> to the authoritative determination of right and wrong. This has been taken
> to extremes in Australia which has perhaps the most permissive divorce law
> in the West (Family Law Act, 1975). There, Family Courts have virtually
> dispensed with the formal notions of legality and have decided disputes
> between spouses on the vaguest and most indeterminate of grounds. This has
> naturally led to unpredictability; which is perhaps the most damaging
> shortcoming a legal system can have. ...." - Norman Barry,
> "Liberating Women
> ... From Modern Feminism," ed. Caroline Quest, pub. IEA 1994, p46.
>
> It will not be a coincidence that in 1967 Denning had gone to Montreal and
> Adelaide to give the Turner memorial lecture in Sydney, this
> being a measure
> of the high regard for him in that country, which then went on to illegal
> extremes.
>
> "The connection between liberty and personal responsibility was broken
> through developments in the common law, which were later embodied in
> statute. .... it was ruled .... that conduct should not normally
> be relevant
> .... Echoing the prevailing 'liberal' sentiment, Lord Denning,
> the Master of
> the Rolls, wrote that 'the court should not reduce its order for financial
> provision merely because of what was formerly regarded as guilt or blame'.
> .... The courts .... were led to ignore questions of right and wrong,
> justice and injustice. Under later statute law, conduct which is so gross
> that not to consider it would be 'inequitable' is supposed to be relevant
> but this provision .... has rarely been invoked." - ibid, p48
>
> Here we see an independent source alleging that Lord Denning initiated the
> destruction of the rule of law.
>
> Power to the judges.
>
> Denning's quest for justice rather than for the rule of law
> involved taking
> maximum power for the judges and then relying on them, firstly, to be
> competent and just, and second, to exploit the loopholes he had developed
> for obstructing the rule of law and replacing it by a moral code.
> A glaring
> example of his battle to empower judges was his battling against the
> independent tribunal, which he persisted in bringing back under
> the control
> of unaccountable judges regardless of the wishes of the elected executive.
>
> Denning's world view was that we trust the judges, who must always and in
> all things be above reproach. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely. The 'Griffith nightmare', that a judge could do anything he
> wanted to do, inevitably resulted in the persistent beatings and
> incarceration for decades of many innocent Irishmen, followed by blatant,
> persistent cover-up by the most senior judges, Denning had the choice of
> admitting his error, or of covering up in his turn. He chose to cover-up;
>
> "Three weeks after the judgement [when the Birmingham Six appeal
> was thrown
> out, so they were wrongly incarcerated for further years,] Lord Denning
> offered a new insight into judicial thinking. He was asked in a television
> interview, if in his opinion the integrity of the system was more
> important
> than the fate of one or two individuals ... found innocent as a result of
> investigations by the television series, Rough Justice. He replied,
> 'Certainly ... the general cause of upholding the system of
> justice is such
> that I would put aside all those Rough Justice cases.'
>
> "The interviewer then asked, 'If I, a working journalist, see a man on the
> roof of a prison claiming he is innocent, should I investigate
> his claim or
> walk away?'
>
> "'Oh, walk away and ignore him. I have a lot of letters from people in
> prison who say they have been wrongly convicted. I'm afraid I put them in
> the wastepaper basket.'"
>
> - Chris Mullin, Error of Judgement, pub. Poolbeg 1986, p312.
>
> ".... I think that it is possible, indeed desirable, to claim
> that one Lord
> Denning is a boon to a legal system, whereas a few hundred Lords Denning
> would have sacrificed too much certainty for too much
> Denning-justice. ....
> In life after Denning, it is difficult to pretend that judges do not have
> discretion ..." - Simon Lee, Judging Judges, pub. Faber & Faber 1988, p132
>
>
>
> In "Straight from the Bench", pub. Dent 1987, p93, Judge James
> Pickles said;
>
> "Solicitors will never put their own house in order. They are much too
> complacent. They are well represented in parliament. Judges - who whilst
> practising at the bar received all their work from solicitors - feel a
> natural diffidence about taking steps against them; there is even
> something
> of a 'dog does not eat dog' feeling. 'We are all lawyers together and must
> stand together.'"
>
> In the Pelling case, the 'judge' that I saw presiding over the
> appeal court,
> refusing to hear the appeal in public, would next week be a
> barrister again,
> looking for work from solicitors, so increasing the incestuous
> nature of the
> racketeering. It was only by chance that his fees were not to be
> those to be
> discussed either in secret or in the glare of the public eye.
> Naturally, he
> opted for secrecy.
>
>
>
> The Ouster.
>
> This next section is one of the small number of reminisces from my many
> appalling experiences in the courts over a long period. My legal and other
> proof-readers argued for omitting them, but I leave them in to
> show that my
> ideas derive from personal experience, and also to show that misconduct by
> lawyers, judges and court officials in the courts is not occasional, but
> normal. I cite only a few of my personal experiences, but would add that I
> have no experience of court cases which proceeded in a competent manner,
> with law enforcement figuring significantly in the proceedings. My
> experience is of course confirmed by Lord Woolf's June 1995
> Interim Report,
> "Access to Justice". The whole system is rotten from top to
> bottom and from
> end to end. I agree with Woolf, that it cannot continue thus.
>
> "This happens every day all over the country. At one time, the ouster
> injunction which regularly accompanied a wife's divorce petition was an
> accepted means of 'clearing the decks for divorce' by getting the husband
> out of the house. Indeed, David Barnard, in 'The Family Court in Action',
> clearly regarded it as the first duty of a solicitor acting for a wife
> petitioner to apply for such an injunction. Whether it was really
> necessary
> was never asked." - Peter Snow, page 6, CJD Newsletter, sep94 issue.
>
> In my case, my wife had invited to our home the couple from the U.S.A. who
> were conspiring with her to block the next £100,000 payment to me by Sir
> Clive Sinclair for the sale of my patents, on the ground that they, not I,
> owned my patents. (I later received Summary {= immediate}
> Judgement against
> them in the High Court.) I told the Americans that if they interfered with
> my business deals, they were not welcome in my home. So my wife got a
> radical feminist solicitor Frances Hughes to write a standard form
> affidavit, sworn unread by my wife, which was secretly taken
> before a judge
> in a ten minute hearing. In patois, this is an "ex parte hearing". It
> charged me, a Quaker, with violence, and I was ordered out of my home
> immediately; in a court order called an "ex parte ouster". This
> left the way
> clear for the Brownlees to fly in from Virginia and continue
> their plotting
> against me in my own home. For good measure, my wife's sworn
> affidavit said
> that my eldest son, who was supporting me, had assaulted his grandmother.
> The court order, based on a ten minute secret hearing, evicted
> him from the
> family home as well. The theory is that if I heard about the
> court hearing,
> I, a Quaker, (and also my son,) would become even more violent.
> So it had to
> be secret.
>
> So in my case, the ouster petition was used, not to clear the decks for
> divorce, but to clear the decks for conspiracy. I immediately swore an
> affidavit saying that the petition was perjured, that I had never been
> violent, and that the perjury in the petition was very easy to prove. For
> instance, Frances Hughes' fantasies caused her to write that I
> walked about
> the house naked. All my adult children would testify that they had never
> seen me naked, because it is one of my idiosynchracies, never to be seen
> naked. My solicitor later told me that my action, in charging perjury, had
> damaged me, and that courts disliked mention of perjury. My wife
> later often
> told me that her sworn affidavit was false, which it obviously
> was. In fact,
> a few months before she swore it, my adult children had prevailed
> on her to
> sign a statement, co-signed by them, that there was no violence
> in our home,
> which was true. They had become concerned that she was
> fabricating violence
> charges against me. I could not get my solicitor and barrister to take any
> interest in this document. My wife invited me back into the my home
> secretly, against the terms of the court ouster order,
> immediately after the
> Brownlees left. Later, I had to sue Sinclair in the High Court to get the
> £100,000, which payment was delayed for a year due to the conspiracy in my
> own home. I also gained summary judgement against my wife and her
> co-conspirators. Later, the divorce judge gave that £100,000, along with
> everything else, to my wife when I sued for divorce.
>
> My case was unusual in that my wife never sued for divorce. Still, some of
> the corrupt trickery in the fabric of the divorce process, the ex parte
> ouster, was used to sabotage my business activities. I sued for
> divorce some
> years later, when I realised that, having got away with such blatant
> falsehood in the courts, there would be no limit to the untrue charges she
> would successfully bring against me when the whim took her in
> future. It was
> insufficient for her to assure me (but not the courts) that her sworn
> affidavit was untrue, as everybody in the family knew full well. I had to
> divorce her, because we both now knew that the courts would
> believe, and act
> on, any criminal charge lodged against a husband. I had to save
> my skin, and
> leave my youngest daughter to fend for herself. After all, it would be
> harmful for her if, as was likely, her father was later jailed following
> false criminal charges by her mother. Every husband and would-be
> husband is
> forewarned by my experience. In the event, three people,
> including my wife,
> swore false perjured affidavits making different criminal charges against
> me. I had no recourse against them. The courts only wanted to believe the
> charges, not to investigate them. The reason I stayed out of jail was that
> the three rogues were permanently at war with each other. All of this
> nightmare arose after all parties realised that the courts
> welcomed perjury.
>
> It would have been very easy to prove perjury, but there was never an
> opportunity. I pursued this matter for some years. After some months, one
> judge said it was a matter for the police. I was enmeshed with the police
> for a year or two, and then they said it was a matter for the courts. So a
> couple of years later, I had a hearing before Circuit Judge Stockdale, the
> only reason for the hearing being my request that my allegation of perjury
> be investigated. He stated that the courts had no facilities for
> investigating perjury. A number of solicitors have told me that
> there is no
> procedure for pursuing perjury. I have come to the same conclusion after
> many hours of study of law books. In contrast, Appeal Court Judge
> Thorpe had
> the gall, on 16th May 1996, to say in a Pelling Appeal Court hearing that
> the family courts were inquisitorial; that the judge's primary duty was to
> establish the facts. They live in the surreal world where establishing the
> facts involves ignoring an assertion under oath that there has been lying
> under oath.
>
> The reason why the courts welcome perjury is simple. It greatly increases
> the fees earned by The Industry. It dirties both the perjurer and his
> adversary, who alleges perjury. It protects The Industry against
> the threat
> of the use of the Law of Equity, because he who comes to Equity must come
> with clean hands. Perjury is the perfect device to lay the way
> open for all
> lawyers in the case to charge massive fees and to avoid thinking
> hard about
> the case. Perjury means that the case is dead except as a source of fees.
>
> Bribery and forgery are in the same class as perjury. The Industry will
> ignore bribery and forgery, and punish the messenger, behaving in the same
> way as it does over perjury. I am sure James Pickles, like all
> other judges,
> would trot out the cliché; "Perjury, forgery and bribery are very serious
> offences", but he would do nothing about them in practice. He
> demonstrates a
> sloppy and confused attitude to forgery in his book "Judge for Yourself",
> pub. Smith Gryphon 1992, pp 40 and 69. First he writes, advising a young
> barrister; "Curb your aggression and use it sparingly, against frauds,
> perjurers and unjust judges - but never against witnesses who are
> honest and
> doing their best." Then blow me, he later writes, casually, about
> a typical
> case of his; "One of the issues is whether documents were forged.
> .... but I
> ordered that the case should go on; the handwriting evidence can
> be heard on
> another day. ...." In my own case my solicitor told me that I had severely
> damaged my case by alleging perjury, which suggestion "is not
> liked". (I had
> sworn an affidavit alleging perjury, which was totally ignored.) Lawyers
> have none of them bothered to think through the traumatic effect
> on a victim
> when presented with either perjury, forgery or bribery of witnesses, and
> then finds that police and lawyers are indifferent to his predicament and
> insist on ignoring his protestations. This gross misbehaviour
> occurs in our
> courts in most divorce cases. One good reason why courts have to be secret
> is to hide this misconduct. We have to give it to Lord Denning that he
> emphasises the need for open courts to prevent judges from misbehaving.
>
> My letters on the subject were published in "The Friend", the Quaker
> journal, on 14th July 1995 and 15th September 1995;
>
> Affirming, as a Quaker.
>
> The discussion about taking the oath (23 and 30 June) misses the
> point. The
> point is that our courts are awash with perjury because there is no
> procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated.
>
> Circuit Judge Stockdale said, when I had a hearing specifically to ask for
> my allegations of perjury to be investigated, that the court had no such
> procedure, that it was a matter for the CID. Thereafter, after two years
> pursuing the CID, the CID said it was a matter for the courts.
>
> It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury.
> Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure. Two
> solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury.
> Lord Mackay apologised to me for other failings of the creaking court
> system. However, he made no comment on this point. It disappears in the
> crack between court and CID. In these circumstances, discussion
> of the oath
> is academic, and reinforces a spurious appearance of normalcy,
> bypassing the
> three inquiries - Nolan, Scott, Woolf, particularly Woolf.
>
> The reason why the legal profession welcomes perjury is that it
> exacerbates
> an adversarial situation and increases costs. Costs, not law or
> justice, is
> the object of the tortuous exercise.
>
> Affirming, as a Quaker.
>
> On 14 July you published my letter saying that '.... our courts are awash
> with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations
> of perjury
> investigated .... It is easy to prove that there is no procedure
> for dealing
> with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the
> procedure.' Nobody has written in. This makes the legal profession an
> anti-social group, happy to continue to trade in lies. In particular, the
> damage inflicted on millions of children of divorce by these irresponsible
> people is devastating.
>
> Leading divorce barrister Ray Tooth, earning £250,000 p.a., tries to
> distance himself from the stench of perjury. Dominic Egan, in "Legal
> Business Magazine", jan/feb94, profiles Tooth's views on ".... how the
> [divorce] situation might be improved. .... First, he would like to see
> prosecutions for perjury against the parties who seem to think nothing of
> lying on oath, both in court and on affidavit." Tooth cannot enjoy his
> massive gains if they continue to be made out of fantasy, not
> fact, law and
> justice. Also, he is a very good lawyer. Perjury is a great
> leveller, since
> it pits one standard, false stereotype against another. Tooth believes he
> would do better if he could get involved in real cases with real people,
> which do not occur in our family courts.
>
> In his book "Lawyers can seriously damage your health", 1985, the author,
> solicitor Michael Joseph, who died early in 1995, discusses such cases.
>
> ".... a certain eminent solicitor had successfully bribed a witness I
> intended calling in proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. Replied the
> Law Society: 'Your letter alleges the commission of a criminal offence. I
> think it would be quite improper and certainly contrary to the usual
> practice of the Law Society for the Society to comment on your allegations
> or to take any action in the matter... The proper authority to
> whom to refer
> the commission of a criminal offence is the Police. This is a matter
> entirely for you. You may think in all the circumstances that you will be
> well advised to take separate legal advice.'"
>
> Here, in the case of bribery, we see The Industry playing the same game as
> it plays with perjury, driving the matter into the chasm between
> the police
> and the courts, where it stays. "These God forgets."
>
> On the next page, Michael Joseph discusses the case of a businessman who
> complained to the Law Society about one of its members. "The Law Society
> dismissed Mr. Parson's complaint, and stated that no further
> correspondence
> would be entered into. Consequently, Mr. Parsons himself took High Court
> proceedings and had the solicitor struck off, which the solicitor did not
> even oppose."
>
> Why do the courts welcome perjury, bribery and forgery, and act
> on them? The
> reason is buried in the evolved ethos of the law. It is
> important, in order
> for The Industry to maximise its control and thence its fees, to dirty all
> litigants or criminal suspects as much as possible, but not so much as to
> make them vote with their feet. We now see the true meaning of
> the idea that
> the English system is an "Adversarial System". The true meaning
> is that all
> laity should be convinced either that they have been shown to be
> blackguards, or that they have been successfully and convincingly dirtied,
> making them more malleable and exploitable. The reason why the game is up,
> is that the mud-slinging by lawyers against even their own
> clients has gone
> too far. The Industry became too arrogant and too sloppy, too despising of
> the goose (you) that laid the billions of eggs. Your family of four is
> paying £2 per week to The Industry in taxes which go into Legal
> Aid; £15,000
> per solicitor and barrister in this country. However, that is the
> tip of the
> iceberg. On top of that, you and your neighbours are paying the money that
> the Legal Aid Board claws back in later repayments, and also on
> top of that
> the amount that you pay The Industry when you go to court without
> Legal Aid.
> Again on top of that, you are paying for the administration of the courts,
> where the cost of a judge's lodgings is £10,000 per week, in order to keep
> up "the traditions and ... the majesty of the law." As Captain Elwes, DL,
> President of the Shrievality Association, put it in The Times on 28sep94,
> "We have to have high-calibre judges in a democracy and must
> treat them with
> the respect and dignity they deserve." He was definitely not
> joking. He also
> said that "Judges are at times entertained, often at home, by the high
> Sheriff [that is, Elwes himself], who acts as his confidant. It is also
> important that they can give hospitality to members of the Bar...." This
> requires lodgings which cost you £1,500 per evening, for each majestic
> judge, whether he is giving hospitality or not after a hard five hour day
> sitting listening in court! The arrogance of these bloodsuckers and their
> cronies is breathtaking, and they are too full of self-importance
> to realise
> that in a bankrupt country, the pips were bound to squeak, as they do now.
> If these guys in fancy dress bothered to deliver any of semblance
> of law and
> order and justice, their racketeering would be less offensive. What is so
> deeply offensive is that, while they cream off the taxpayer so
> profligately,
> they are assiduously attacking the foundations of society, with their
> ignorance of the law and their crass judgements, always thrown out by the
> European Court. Also in The Times that day, an auditor tells of the judge
> who called out an electrician to change a light bulb, at the minimum
> call-out charge of £25, paid by you, the taxpayer.
>
> If the rapidly escalating £1.5 billion Legal Aid bill now stabilises, then
> you, a typical taxpayer, will during your life contribute £2,000
> directly to
> the Legal Aid fund. You will also pay back to the Fund much of the money
> your lawyers will receive from it, ostensibly on behalf of you, should you
> fight cases in court.
>
>
>
> Paying for time, playing for time.
>
> The Industry does not sell justice or the rule of law. The only thing it
> sells is time. A classic case comes from my own experience.
>
> Sinclair Research Ltd. bought and then developed my first
> invention, called
> "Catt Spiral". Sinclair fell apart in what was called the "Sweet
> Surrender"
> to Alan Sugar, following a bogus bail-out by Maxwell. One of the
> creditors,
> Barclays Bank, picked up Catt Spiral and kept it going in a
> spin-off company
> called Anamartic. I was fired by Anamartic, but the Board of Directors of
> Anamartic ordered the management to hire me back and to buy my new patent,
> Kernel, which obsoleted my Spiral patent that they were developing.
>
> The management overlooked the instruction to buy my new patent, but did
> endeavour to hire me. However, since they had only recently fired me, I
> refused to return for less than three years. I asked for six
> months' notice
> on either side, but this to be after a minimum of three years on
> their side.
> When the contract, signed by them, dated May, arrived, I rejected it,
> writing a letter saying that I rejected it for the single reason that it
> omitted the three year minimum. A new version, already signed, dated June,
> then arrived on my doormat, and I signed it. Eighteen months later, in the
> middle of the three year period, the new Managing Director summarily fired
> me, pleading financial problems but with no criticism of me. I got him to
> unfire me on the grounds that it broke my contract. However, a few months
> later he fired me again; the third time that the company
> expressly set up to
> develop my inventions fired me!
>
> We thus had a very simple situation. I rejected the May version of the
> contract, writing to say that the rejection was because it lacked
> the three
> year minimum. I had the incompletely signed May contract, and the
> completely
> signed June contract with the single change demanded by me, and also my
> letter of rejection of the May contract. No simpler case of breach of
> contract could be imagined.
>
> After some six months trying to get them to see reason, I finally sued
> Anamartic. The courts managed to build delays of a year into
> their ponderous
> perusal of the simplest possible case of Breach of Contract. Here was a
> transparent case of The Industry selling time. During that year, Anamartic
> went to great pains to get into liquidation, and nearly succeeded. An
> ex-chairman of the board told me they would go into liquidation
> in January,
> when my next interminable court hearing was to be in February. However,
> Fujitsu, a £2 millions, major investor, instructed Anamartic to delay
> liquidation so that they could carry forward their losses into the next
> year. This is why, for all their manipulation of the law's
> delays, I won the
> very simple case, in February.
>
> We all know that the courts introduce delay by grabbing any and
> every excuse
> to postpone a hearing for three or four months, thus increasing the
> attendance fees of all lawyers including the judge. The more blatant
> technique is the multi-stage appeal, rising up the court
> hierarchy until one
> side has completely run out of money to pay The Industry's ever-increasing
> fees. A botched court hearing is ideal in that it encourages the litigants
> to appeal, and put yet more money into the hands of what they by then know
> is an incompetent Industry, vainly thinking that the courts
> generally pursue
> justice, and that they have been unfortunate, rather than typical
> victims of
> a chaotic protection Industry.
>
> I stumbled on a little known, blatant device for increasing complexity,
> confusion and cost.
>
> After Anamartic had defaulted on some five monthly payments, I set out to
> serve a writ demanding payment for those five months plus the
> further months
> between the present time and the court hearing. I was told that it was not
> permissible to include the future months leading up to the court hearing.
> Following the court's advice, I served a second writ a few months
> later, to
> cover the now elapsed further months of default. In the end, I
> had to serve
> three writs, relating to the same issue.
>
> Every time I served a writ in my local St. Albans court, it was
> automatically transferred to the Cambridge court, Anamartic's local court,
> and given a new number. Thus, three writs gained six numbers. When
> Anamartic's solicitors quoted the wrong number on one of their
> replies, the
> number of numbers rose to seven. The courts had no
> cross-referencing between
> any of these six or seven numbers. Anamartic failed to reply
> formally (with
> identical wording) to any but the first of the three writs, and so should
> have lost those two mini-cases by default. However, I refused to
> win in such
> a silly way.
>
> Each time a Writ had transferred to Cambridge, I was free to ask Cambridge
> County Court to return it to St. Albans, and I did so. However,
> if I sent my
> request before Cambridge received a Writ, they totally ignored my letter.
> When I found this out, I covered the position by sending them repeated
> copies of my letters. However, Cambridge County Court muddled the numbers
> and failed to return most of the cases. We finally approached the hearing
> with some cases in St. Albans and some in Cambridge. However, I threatened
> to tell the judge that the Cambridge officials were wasting the
> court's time
> by failing to get all the three cases back to St. Albans, and
> that chivvied
> them up.
>
> Ten minutes before the hearing, a bulldog barrister for Anamartic settled
> the case on my terms. In the court, they told the judge that the
> bulk of the
> money had been paid into court. This turned out to be a lie by Anamartic's
> solicitors. My attempts to transmit that information to their barrister -
> that his side had lied in court - were thwarted by the solicitors refusing
> to tell me how to reach their bulldog barrister.
>
> After much stress and trouble, the cheque was paid into court, by
> a company
> about to go into liquidation. I pressed the court to encash the cheque
> immediately, but they replied that their rules said they must hold the
> cheque for three weeks before encashing it. They were indifferent when I
> told them that the Chairman of the Board of Anamartic had boasted
> to me that
> the company planned to go into liquidation in the previous January. I took
> this matter a number of stages up through the court hierarchy, threatening
> to sue individual court officials for damages, before it was finally
> admitted that the rule referred to paying me, not to cashing the
> cheque. All
> along, all court officials resisted the concept of a company going into
> liquidation, which it did, soon after. So Anamartic could not evade their
> debt to me because the lawyers in the case, including the part time judge,
> had only been paid off enough in Costs to delay our totally
> straightforward
> case for the previous twelve months. Perhaps their barrister and
> solicitors
> were concerned to get their fees quick, and so double-crossed Anamartic by
> failing to extend the delays.
>
> I then asked the court officials how they proceeded to cash the
> cheque. They
> replied that they handed it to a Securicor van which came to their front
> door, and took it to somewhere in London, they didn't know where. In spite
> of repeated attempts, I never could determine where the cheque
> went. The St.
> Albans court certainly didn't know. I was interested because I knew the
> cheque had to be cashed immediately.
>
> Anyone who has been enmeshed in the English courts will have story after
> story of such tortuous procedures and disgraceful incompetence at
> all stages
> in The Industry. These multifarious manoeuvres have nothing
> whatsoever to do
> with the law, or with the case in hand. As always, both Anamartic and also
> myself were first Hooked, and then Stung, the winners being a bunch of
> shyster lawyers, one wearing a judge's fancy dress. I was absolutely right
> to spend six months trying, and failing, to coax Anamartic to
> treat with me
> rather than face me in a slippery English court.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Lottery Winner.
>
> Wife to divorce lottery winner. - A mother of four is going ahead
> with plans
> to divorce her unemployed husband, even though he has just won nearly £1
> million on the Irish national lottery. - The Daily Telegraph, 26 oct 94.
>
> This case illustrates the crisis in the English legal system. In his book
> "Judge for Yourself", pub. Smith Gryphon 1992, pp46 and 58, Judge Pickles
> variously says that he received either no training or one day's training
> when appointed a Circuit Judge. In his books, his simplistic analysis
> betrays minimal grasp of the psychoses involved in sick
> marriages. And he is
> one of the best!
>
> Let us predict his reaction to the wife divorcing the novice millionaire.
> The fact that she is pursuing divorce proves that previously,
> with no money
> to improve the situation, she had bravely put up with regular
> beatings from
> a foul, drunken, unemployable brute of a husband. As Pickles
> wrote in Judge
> for Yourself, p126, ".... Some hobbled on crutches .... All the women had
> misery in their eyes and fear in their minds, and looked to me for
> protection."
>
> Unable even to risk staying long enough to celebrate his new wealth, the
> battered wife was beating a hasty retreat, taking her vulnerable children
> with her. She felt unable to risk further beatings and other humiliation,
> even at the risk of losing the benefit of the new riches. The Judge would
> not need to hear claims that she and her children had been beaten and
> sexually abused. Her action in seeking divorce proved it.
>
> While unemployed, her husband had snatched the food out of her and her
> children's mouths and risked it in the lottery. He must not be allowed to
> benefit from his ill-gotten wealth, and Pickles would allocate three
> quarters of the lottery winnings to the long-suffering wife.
>
> The hidden agenda, by a judge who retained loyalty to his barrister
> colleagues, would be that such a division would lead to a
> lucrative appeal,
> with barristers getting their snouts deep into a large trough. Later, it
> would be imagined that fine points of law had been determined in
> the Appeal
> Court. The lawyers' fees could safely be pushed up to over
> £250,000, so long
> as the original judge had played his cards right.
>
> The truth will be different again. Perhaps the wife could not bear being
> eclipsed by her husband's new fame, and sought divorce solely to
> regain the
> limelight. However, it is much more likely that her behaviour was
> motivated
> by the same drives that drove my wife and numerous other wives that I have
> come across. A crucial factor in their behaviour is the certainty that the
> divorce judge will be untrained, ignorant of human psychology, and also
> imbued with the myth that "Women are not as hard, aggressive or
> predatory as
> men. They are more sensitive of others' feelings. A woman who gets on to
> drink and drugs often does so because her relationship with a man has gone
> wrong. The male quest for conquest, sensation and change is more likely to
> cause unhappiness than the female quest for affection, children
> and a stable
> home life." - Judge James Pickles, "Straight from the Bench", pub. Dent
> 1987, p83. This kind of drivel is entrenched in the masonic minds
> of judges,
> who have no knowledge or training in the problems of the
> menopause, or of a
> mother's feeling of uselessness when the children leave the home, or the
> concept of the Co-Dependent vividly portrayed in Lillian Hellman's play
> "Toys in the Attic". My wife demonstrated the psychosis in her case by
> telling me a number of times that I would leave her should I be very
> successful. I was forewarned of the attacks which increased as my
> successes
> increased. Very successful men will confirm the syndrome, boosted today by
> radical feminism. A large proportion of self-made men today will have been
> attacked by their wives at the moment of success, encouraged by
> ignorant and
> envious lawyers to destroy most of the family assets in
> internecine divorce
> feuding while forwarding a proportion to venal lawyers. These husbands end
> up penniless and homeless while paying the living costs of their ex-wives
> with their toy-boys in the marital home.
>
>
>
> Edmund Heward
>
> Edmund Heward former Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery
> Division),
> retired in 1985. A Master is a Deputy Judge. In 1990 he wrote the
> biography
> "Lord Denning", pub. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, which is a mine of
> information as to the state of mind of the senior judiciary
> during the years
> that Denning and his supporters cut a swathe through the English legal
> fabric.
>
> The fact that Heward writes with such approval of Denning makes
> his message
> terrifying. Here we have a judge in a very senior position
> failing to think
> through the implications of Denning's behaviour, even though it is spelled
> out in his own book.
>
> Denning took his final examination in June 1922. At the viva voce
> examination the examiner was Geoffrey Cheshire, later Vinerian
> Professor at
> Oxford, who became a personal friend. Cheshire asked questions on the new
> Law of Property Act which only received the Royal assent on 29 June 1922.
> Denning had read up all about the Act and with his good memory was able to
> make a good impression on the examiner. He was placed in the
> first class in
> this examination, Roman Law being a compulsory subject. Subsequently
> Cheshire showed Denning his marks, a wide range of alphas but one
> gamma for
> jurisprudence. He was not fond of jurisprudence and once wrote:
>
> Jurisprudence was too abstract a subject for my liking. All about
> ideologies, legal norms and basic norms, 'ought' and 'is', realism and
> behaviourism: and goodness knows what else. The jargon of the philosophers
> has always been beyond me. I like to get down to the practical problems
> which come up for decision. Contracts, torts, crime and the like.
>
> ....
>
> .... Denning did not have the makings of an academic lawyer. His bent is
> practical, in the world of affairs. He has a very quick mind but was never
> an intellectual.
>
> - E. Hemming; Lord Denning, A Biography.
>
> Today we pay the price for a conjunction of unfortunate events.
> Firstly, the
> heavy emphasis on memory in law exams, with the false implication, pressed
> into all minds, that good memory implied good brain. Second, the
> problem of
> the outsider. Denning was not "one of us". He was neither Eton, Winchester
> nor Trinity (actually going to my school, Andover Grammar), and
> he was not a
> Freemason. He thought that his better brain had led him to high position,
> whereas it was actually his good memory and his gargantuan appetite for
> work. He became that very dangerous operator, the self-styled outsider at
> the centre of the Establishment. It inexorably led him to ignore the
> concerns of Dr. John Morris and others. The proof of the pudding is now in
> the eating, with the total collapse of the English legal fabric. Such as
> Morris might have predicted it, but it was too arcane to argue
> that Denning
> would destroy the legal fabric, and so they were ignored. Denning's damage
> closely parallels the damage done to our other institutions by
> narrow minded
> Thatcherism, which, like Denning, lacked intellectual depth.
>
> The implications of Denning's approach were predicted early, in 1966. E.
> Hemming writes on p64;
>
> .... Chancery Judge ....Dankwerts was a strong supporter of Dennning's
> approach and on one occasion when counsel appeared before him
> with an armful
> of authorities said: 'What are those for? This is only a construction
> summons [for the interpretation of a will]'.
>
> The case was more than the academic stomach could stand and Dr.
> John Morris
> of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote an article entitled 'Palm Tree
> Justice in
> the Court of Appeal' published in the Law Quarterly Review. He wrote:
>
> By departing from the established rules of law the Court of
> Appeal seems to
> have usurped the functions of the legislature. The decision will
> require the
> re-writing of the whole of the chapters on gifts to children in the
> text-books on wills, unless the editor has the courage to say that it is
> manifestly wrong .... If this new addition to the construction of wills
> comes to prevail, it will not be sufficient just to re-write the
> chapter on
> gifts to children in the text-books on wills. The text-books
> themselves will
> have to be scrapped and construction reduced to the level of guesswork. It
> is submitted that the rules of law binding on the court cannot be evaded
> merely by calling them technical.
>
> The reason why Denning was unstoppable when he set about tearing
> up the law
> and then went on to tear up the legal fabric is that, as we will
> see late in
> this book in the chapter "Synthesis", he had as strong a
> historical pedigree
> as did his opponents, who wanted to uphold and save the Law.
>
> What comes through strongly is the stunning arrogance of Denning, and his
> inability to foresee the inevitable long term consequences of his
> high-handed attack on the legal fabric. I will give an example.
>
> Anamartic, the company set up by Sir Clive Sinclair to develop and exploit
> my "Catt Spiral" invention fired me. A year or two later they decided to
> re-hire me. However, I would give up a secure post as Principal
> Lecturer if
> I went back. This is why I demanded, and got, a contract which gave a
> minimum of three years on their side, and six months' notice on
> either side.
> Thus, I could leave at any time, but the company would only be able to get
> rid of me after a minimum of three and a half years.
>
> The May copy of our new contract, signed by Anamartic, lacked the
> three year
> minimum clause. I returned it with a covering letter saying that
> if that one
> clause were added, I would sign. In due course, the June version of our
> contract came with the additional clause, already signed by
> Anamartic, and I
> signed it.
>
> The two reasons for my demanding a minimum commitment by
> Anamartic of three
> years were, firstly that they had already fired me once, secondly
> that they
> were likely to run into financial difficulties, in which case I
> would be at
> risk, and thirdly that I was giving up a secure post. However,
> these reasons
> were not spelled out, for obvious reasons. Had Anamartic's lack
> of substance
> been spelled out in our contract, that would have damaged Anamartic's
> creditworthiness. This point was too subtle for a judge to think
> through, or
> to believe years later. On page 323 of their book "In Search of Justice",
> pub. Allen Lane 1968, B Abel-Smith and Robert Stevens wrote;
>
> Most of the ablest barristers have only the vaguest ideas of the
> social and
> political issues underlying the legal problems with which they are faced.
>
> This is where the arrogance of Denning becomes so dangerous. Studying his
> decisions, we can see that he believes that he has a better grasp
> of events
> where he was not present, than the actual actors in those events. When
> Anamartic fired me again, half way through the three years, my suit for
> damages was clear-cut, and I won. However, study of Denning's judgements
> shows that the case would not appear clear cut to him. Lacking
> experience of
> hi-tec, high risk ventures, he would argue that the financial collapse of
> Anamartic was unforeseen, and he as judge would have constructed
> a scenario
> of what the parties would have thought was fair in the new circumstances,
> rather than what the contract's literal interpretation would
> indicate. Under
> Denning, only contracts relating to activities well within the
> range of the
> average judge's experience and comprehension can be enforced. We
> shall have
> no hi-tec industry in Britain.
>
>
>
> The Unravelling.
>
> I was wondering why Denning reversed from being a man of the people;
> defender of the layman victim; to being reactionary in the cases of the
> Birmingham six and the miners' strikes.
>
> I realised that he had not reversed at all. He was consistent throughout.
>
> Denning writes that a judge should lean over backwards to ensure that
> justice is done for the individual in the court; (a) by
> construction, (b) by
> setting new precedent, (c) using Equity.
>
> It is Equity which gives the judge massive discretion and therefore power,
> and makes the courts unpredictable.
>
> Keith Eddey (Solicitor), "The English Legal System", pub. Sweet & Maxwell
> 1971, 4th edn. 1987, p176;
>
> "Maxims of Equity.
>
> ".... maxims of Equity. Among the most famous are:
>
> He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands;
>
> Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without remedy;
>
> Delay defeats Equity; and
>
> Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form.
>
> The maxims emphasise that Equity, being based in its origins on
> fairness and
> natural justice, attempted to maintain this approach throughout its later
> history. Certainly the judges retained their personal discretion, so that
> equitable remedies were not, and are not, obtainable as of right."
>
> Thus Equity introduces rampant judicial discretion. The last
> clause, "Equity
> looks to the intent...." shows why, today, the manipulation of
> the media and
> the establishing of whole groups in our society as witches and
> other groups
> as victims is important in its influence on the decision of judges.
>
> Denning argued against bothering with technicalities. For example, he
> established that if a solicitor failed to register an appeal within
> specified time, he could still appeal. Denning said it was absurd that a
> client should suffer because his solicitor had failed to follow correct
> procedures. Professors of jurisprudence said this made the law
> unpredictable, which was very damaging. However, since Denning's objective
> was Equity, he could not understand that altering procedures with
> the object
> of improving Equity could do anything but good.
>
> Police noted the unpredictability of the resulting law, and were
> increasingly frustrated that an erratic law might let a villain off scot
> free, even after police had lavished time and effort on the villain. This
> unpredictability, possibility reinforced by the notion that the system's
> objective was justice/equity rather than the rule of law, inexorably led
> police to fit up undoubted villains.
>
> The new pseudo-law, an unadulterated Law of Equity, untrammelled by the
> technicalities of statute law and common law, altered the role of
> the judge
> from law-enforcer to morality-enforcer. Necessarily, the judge
> was now seen
> to be morally superior to all of those in front of him. Further,
> the police,
> as his handmaids, although morally a little below himself, must be above
> everyone else there assembled.
>
> Thus the Birmingham and Guildford debacles flowed inevitably from
> Denning's
> assault, and his undermining of the rule of law. It was always noticeable,
> and even pointed out, that he assumed an error-free judiciary.
> However, this
> new Olympian role for the judge, making it no longer necessary for him to
> know or understand law, but only to appreciate morality and justice, in
> making him unpredictable, led to frustration in his servants, the police.
>
> In this moral climate, there was nothing whatever immoral in a policeman
> fitting up a known villain. Quite the reverse.
>
> Thus on to the debacles of Birmingham, Guildford, and so many more.
>
> Denning having undermined the rule of law, all that was left was the moral
> fibre of judges and their servants, the police. However, that very
> undermining of the law led the police to immoral and illegal activity on a
> grand scale.
>
> Judges, knowing that all that now remained between us and anarchy was the
> moral fibre of the judges, could no longer afford to reverse judgements by
> lower courts where there was hint of major wrongdoing by judge or police.
> Thus, Denning's behaviour led inevitably to cover-up by higher court of
> lower court and of police.
>
> Denning's achievement in changing the British Legal system to the British
> Moral system explains why he supports the continued incarceration of
> innocent men, rather than risk the discrediting of the morality of a moral
> system, much as the Catholic church has to cover up, as long as
> it can, any
> illegal activities by its priests.
>
> I repeat the key comment by Mullin;
>
> Three weeks after [the Birmingham Six appeal was dismissed in 1988,] Lord
> Denning offered a new insight into judicial thinking. He was asked in a
> television interview, if in his opinion the integrity of the
> system was more
> important than the fate of one or two individuals who had been found
> innocent as a result of investigations by the television series, Rough
> Justice. He replied, 'Certainly .... the general cause of upholding the
> system of justice is such that I would put aside all those Rough Justice
> cases.'
>
> The interviewer then asked, 'If I, a working journalist. see a man on the
> roof of a prison claiming he is innocent, should I investigate
> his claim or
> walk away?'
>
> 'Oh, walk away and ignore him. I have a lot of letters from
> people in prison
> who say they have been wrongly convicted. I'm afraid I put them into the
> wastepaper basket.'
>
> -"Error of Judgement" by Chris Mullin, pub. Poolbeg 1990, p311.
>
> Having lost its basis in law, the British one-time Legal System
> now has only
> a moral base. Were it shown to have acted immorally on even a few
> occasions,
> its only raison d'être would disappear. As we now know however,
> it acts not
> only illegally but also immorally in perhaps the majority of cases. This
> includes legions of disgraceful cover-ups. So the legal system
> self-destructed.
>
> The thesis of this book, that our congealed legal system is beyond reform,
> is confirmed by the appointment of a member of an elite branch of
> Freemasons
> as chairman of the Government's new body to investigate miscarriages of
> justice. If my friend Kurt Metzer's assertion is correct, that our problem
> is, not Masons, but the social group that Masons represent, then the
> resignation of Sir Frederick Crawford from the Masons will not help. Not
> only Masons, but those who associate with Masons, cannot function in the
> reform of our legal system. Like the radical feminists, their
> heavily moral
> and sectional ethos is incompatible with addressing a system which is now
> based only on morals and needs to be brought back to the rule of
> law. Chris
> Mullin "said he was amazed to discover that Sir Frederick was a
> Freemason."
>
> Even I, as someone who is cynical about the British judicial
> system, did not
> think they would be daft enough to appoint a mason. It's going to
> bring the
> commission into ridicule.
>
> - The Guardian, 15th August 1996, page 1.
>
> This is a prototype for the kind of nonsense which will undermine any
> attempt to reform a system so far gone in corruption as the English Legal
> system. The same applies to the Woolf reforms. Woolf, concerned that costs
> are out of hand, wants proportionality rather than the fair (legal) costs
> for the job. By comparison, were he a railwayman, (Robin Hood) Woolf would
> have you pay 1% of your total assets for your train ticket. This will be
> quite as mad as the present legal extortion, but saves the lawyers'
> lifestyle.
>
>
>
> The Charade
>
> ".... This is one of the games played by judges, extending and restricting
> the scope of judicial review like Procrustes fitting victims to his bed.
> ...." - J.A.G. Griffith, "The Politics of the Judiciary", pub.
> Fontana 1991
> (4th ed.), p187.
>
> "No one, however, should underestimate the capacity of the judiciary for
> moving the goal-posts." - C. Mullin M.P., "Error of Judgement",
> pub. Poolbeg
> 1990, p240. Also moving goal posts on p300. Compare this with last para.,
> p305.
>
> The judges move the goal-posts, but should it serve the interests of a
> cover-up, as on p305, the goal posts are suddenly cast in
> concrete, whatever
> Denning might have said so often and so persistently;
> "....counsel vary much
> in their ability and I do not think that their clients should
> suffer by any
> oversight or mistake of counsel." - Denning, "The Discipline of Law", pub.
> Butterworths 1979, p. 289. This and other Denning successes over
> decades (in
> destabilising the structure) made it a total disgrace for the
> appeal judges
> to put up the shutters in the Birmingham six case and leave the innocent
> six, none of them even members of the IRA, to rot in jail for
> further years
> merely to protect the reputations of judges and of policemen. According to
> Mullin, who had interviewed the true culprits, not only he, but also the
> Midland Police and the RUC had for years known the identity of the true
> bombers, and that the six were innocent. However, since the civil
> rights of
> wrongly incarcerated victims were at stake rather than the much more
> important power and reputations of judges, all of Denning's hard-fought
> 'reforms' did not apply. Suddenly, there was no 'discretion' or
> 'Equity' to
> come to the rescue.
>
> Before Robin Gay pointed to Denning as a key actor in the
> destruction of the
> British Legal System, I had written to my MP, Peter Lilley, and
> his shadow,
> D Dewar, under the title "Breakdown of the Legal Fabric", as follows;
>
> I have been in court many times, including the High Court, most of it as
> Litigant in Person. I know that if I enter into litigation yet again, the
> events which follow will not remotely relate to the rule of law or the
> concept of justice. There is no law, unless one decides to hurry the case
> through England to the top, and then restart properly in Europe,
> some years
> later.
>
>
>
> The End of Legislation.
>
> Traditionally, statute and common law will occasionally bear down hard on
> the unforeseen case. Recourse is, in the criminal law, to a Pardon, and in
> the civil law, to say "tough", and hurry to legislate to prevent another
> such untoward occurrence.
>
> Denning says he was more interested in justice than in the rule of law. He
> was impatient of the procedure outlined above. He thought almost solely of
> the victim in front of him.
>
> Denning used two techniques to prevent injustice from being done in the
> unforeseen case;
>
> 1) Interpretation, stretching it as far as possible and further.
>
> 2) Equity.
>
> Thus, Denning took the pressure off the legislature to enact law which
> shored up the cracks, since Interpretation and Equity would
> suffice anyway,
> followed by Precedent based on Equity (or Interpretation).
>
> Now for the mind-boggling question:
>
> If Interpretation, or, failing interpretation, Equity, can always ensure
> Justice, then what purpose is served by law?
>
> The use of Equity to rapidly absorb the half-baked precepts of
> the 1967 UNO
> Declaration on Human Rights points to the general principle, that no
> legislation or further development of Statute Law is needed. All
> we need is
> Equity, and precedent based on Equity.
>
> Here was the classic error of the shallow thinker; short term, fashionable
> benefit at the cost of long term disaster. Denning never realised that the
> truth was, that he was against the law. He saw the law as his
> enemy, and the
> enemy of the people. Like Pickles, he thought of himself as an outsider,
> brighter and more close to the people, so that he was destined to
> blunt the
> harsh edges of the Establishment and make their constructions more just.
> However, the long term result was anarchy. In such a situation,
> where short
> term convenience threatens long term probity, the proof of the
> pudding is in
> the eating. Only now do we see that the price is catastrophically
> high, with
> secret anarchy behind closed doors in the family courts.
>
>
>
> The Fatal Trigger
>
> It is useful to concentrate on a specific event which triggered
> the descent
> into matriarchy with all men becoming helots. This event was the
> "Declaration on Discrimination Against Women" by the United Nations on the
> 7th of November, 1967. This Declaration, which is highly
> discriminatory, was
> formulated and signed by a UNO dominated by men; men who had no
> doubt about
> their present superiority and their future security as masters of the
> situation. Thus, giving sop to militant feminists was a harmless
> concession.
> This Declaration, far from declaring that men and women should have equal
> rights and treatment, systematically declared that women should
> have either
> equality or superiority. It casually removed basic human rights from men.
>
> An ignorant, venal and largely defunct judiciary in Britain, fixated on
> costs and its own aggrandisement, had no interest in the social
> implications
> of its actions. It already had lost contact with concepts of justice, the
> rule of law, and equity. It only knew that whereas discrimination against
> women meant trouble for them, discrimination against men did not,
> since such
> discrimination was applauded in the UNO Declaration. If the judiciary
> succeeded in dirtying all those brought before it, particularly men, it
> would be secure from the intrusion into its courts of arguments about
> Justice and Equity. (He who argues for Equity must come with clean hands.)
> It then became totally safe to give all to women and confiscate from men.
>
> The whole of this declaration is discriminatory in that it
> demands action to
> right the wrongs done to women, but says nothing about protecting men's
> rights. It was inevitable that member states who took notice of the
> Declaration, that is, western states with powerful feminist lobbies, who
> also had weak or decaying legal systems, would remove basic civil rights
> from men. This would be followed by social and economic collapse. However,
> patriarchal states, unable to veto the 1967 UNO declaration, would ignore
> it. This led us into the present situation; a slide into a war between the
> socially and economically declining matriarchies, centred on the USA and
> Britain, and the patriarchal, fundamentalist states, supported by the
> patriarchal Christian bible belt in the midwest of the U.S.A. One of the
> opening shots of a potentially disastrous war is the Oklahoma bombing.
>
> The flashpoint will be young men. Their suicide rate is
> escalating, and all
> other indicators show their reaction to the persistent man-bashing in the
> media. Older men, having lived through periods when men were not
> persistently portrayed as witches, will not feel so rejected by
> society. It
> is the young men who will seek a means to reassert their
> self-respect, using
> either patriarchal fascism or patriarchal religious
> fundamentalism, or both.
> The radical feminists have no strategy for dealing with the monster they
> have inflicted on society.
>
> Generally, analysis of the problem is kept out of our media by the radical
> feminists in the various editorial hierarchies. See Janet Daley, Daily
> Telegraph, 7may96, p18; "The prattle of the sexes";
>
> .... .... .... But in the meantime, the professional complainers
> are having
> a field day. This is one area where I would accept that men are being
> disadvantaged. The feminist complaint lobby has the media so
> cowed that any
> BBC programme which does not fill its quota of female "spokespersons" puts
> itself in jeopardy. (I am not exaggerating.) The absurd result of this is
> that women commentators like me field dozens of requests from
> television and
> radio to take part in discussions, not necessarily because we have the
> appropriate expertise but because we have the right genital plumbing.
> Desperate programme researchers respond to my suggestions of male
> colleagues
> with the piteous admission: "But we need a woman". Perhaps the cruellest
> irony is that the barrel-scraping to which this policy leads will so
> obviously backfire on women - as equal opportunity law already has. If a
> less good woman is preferred to a better man, then her presence can incur
> only contempt. And that can only make it harder in the long run for
> individual women who want to be promoted - or listened to - because they
> deserve to be.
>
> Here we may ponder the idiocy of Lord Chief Justice's assertion
> that the law
> responds to public opinion - that is, the opinion of a tiny rump
> of journal
> and media editors. WE may also ponder Denning's idea that we should look
> behind the letter of the law to the spirit of the age - that is,
> of the tiny
> group who control the media.
>
> The only avenues for expressing concern were Barbara Amiel in The Sunday
> Times while Andrew Neil was editor, the Telegraph to a lesser degree, and
> now only the Daily Mail. No other journal allowed publication of the
> worrying forecasts by Patricia Morgan in January 1995 (back cover of her
> book "Farewell to the Family?", pub. IEA); "Large numbers of
> unattached and
> predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of
> family life,
> or who have been ejected from families [as I was], now meet the classic
> conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'". However, even radical
> feminists are beginning to worry about the coming violence, and allowing
> minimal discussion of some of the issues in the media. For instance, Helen
> Wilkinson in The Independent, 2 January 1996, section 2, p2; "Fearful,
> anxious, vociferous, often confused and sometimes violent. Meet
> the victims
> of the Nineties: men". Radical feminists need to realise that the false,
> man-bashing allegations against men may become self-fulfilling prophecies.
> However, the more pressing reason for a volte-face is that,
> having exploited
> judges' misbehaviour to confiscate their ex-spouses' assets and
> incomes, and
> cut them off from their children, they are only now realising
> that the same
> thing will happen to their own sons, with their own ill-gotten assets
> hijacked in turn by a peripatetic daughter-in-law. In an ironic twist,
> radical feminists with sons (whom they cut off from their fathers) will be
> cut off from their own grandchildren. Even worse, the radical
> feminist's own
> son could be jailed on some bogus rape or violence charge. It is the fact
> that women give birth to male children that shows the madness of the
> temporarily successful attempt to create an adversary situation
> between men
> and women. It cannot last more than two decades, but we see around us the
> short term cost, enormously exacerbated by an ignorant, incompetent, venal
> legal Industry.
>
>
>
> U.N. Declaration on Women's Rights.
>
> [By failing to declare for equality, this Declaration would
> inevitably lead
> to loss of civil rights for children and men in those more
> liberal countries
> which ratified it. This failure is repeated in most clauses - 1,
> 2, 3, 4, 5,
> 6(3), 7, 8, 9, 10. The concept of discrimination against men was not
> available to the authors, and so such discrimination inevitably resulted.
> Only clause 11 is properly, impartially, drafted. Had "one
> gender" been used
> each time instead of "women", and "another gender" instead of "men", all
> would have been well, and children and men would today have protection
> against discrimination.]
>
> Following is the text of a declaration on discrimination against women, as
> adopted 7 November 1967 in the General Assembly.
>
> The General Assembly,
>
> Considering that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter,
> reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the
> dignity and worth
> of the human person and in equal rights of men and women,
>
> Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the
> principle of nondiscrimination and proclaims that all human
> beings are born
> free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all
> the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of
> any kind,
> including any distinction as to sex,
>
> Taking into account the resolutions, declarations, conventions and
> recommendations of the United Nations and the specialized
> agencies designed
> to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote equal
> rights for men
> and women,
>
> Concerned that, despite the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights and other instruments of the United Nations and the specialized
> agencies and despite the progress made in the matter of equality
> of rights,
> there continues to exist discrimination against women,
>
> Considering that discrimination against women is incompatible with human
> dignity, and with the welfare of the family and of society, prevents their
> participation on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic
> and cultural life of their countries, and is an obstacle to the full
> development of the potentialities of women in the service of
> their countries
> and of humanity,
>
> Bearing in mind the great contributions made by women to social,
> political,
> economic and cultural life and the part they play in the family and
> particularly in the rearing of children,
>
> Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare
> of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of
> women as well as men in all fields,
>
> Solemnly proclaims this Declaration:
>
> ARTICLE 1
>
> Discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does
> their equality
> of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offense
> against human dignity.
>
> ARTICLE 2
>
> All appropriate measures shall be taken to abolish existing laws, customs,
> regulations and practices which are discriminatory against women, and to
> establish adequate legal protection for equal rights of men and women, in
> particular:
>
> (a) The principle of equality of rights shall be embodied in the
> constitution or otherwise guaranteed by law;
>
> (b) The international instruments of the United Nations and the
> specialized
> agencies relating to the elimination of discrimination against women shall
> be ratified or acceded to and fully implemented as soon as practicable.
>
> ARTICLE 3
>
> All appropriate measures shall be taken to educate public opinion
> and direct
> national aspirations toward the eradication of prejudice and the abolition
> of customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the
> inferiority of women.
>
> ARTICLE 4
>
> All appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure to women on equal terms
> with men without any discrimination:
>
> (a) The right to vote in all elections and be eligible for election to all
> publicly elected bodies;
>
> (b) The right to vote in all public referenda;
>
> (c) The right to hold public office and to exercise all public functions.
>
> Such rights shall be guaranteed by legislation.
>
> ARTICLE 5
>
> Women shall have the same rights as men to acquire, change or retain their
> nationality. Marriage to an alien shall not automatically affect the
> nationality of the wife either by rendering her stateless or by forcing on
> her the nationality of her husband.
>
> ARTICLE 6
>
> 1. Without prejudice to the safeguarding of the unity and the
> harmony of the
> family which remains the basic unit of any society, all appropriate
> measures, particularly legislative measures, shall be taken to insure to
> women, married or unmarried, equal rights with men in the field of civil
> law, and in particular:
>
> (a) The right to acquire, administer and enjoy, dispose of and inherit
> property, including property acquired during the marriage;
>
> (b) The right to equality in legal capacity and the exercise thereof;
>
> (c) The same rights as men with regard to the law on the movement of
> persons.
>
> 2. All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure the principle of
> equality of status of the husband and wife, and in particular:
>
> (a) Women shall have the same rights as men to free choice of
> spouse and to
> enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;
>
> (b) Women shall have equal rights with men during marriage and at its
> dissolution. In all cases the interest of the child shall be paramount;
>
> (c) Parents shall have equal rights and duties in matters
> relating to their
> children. In all cases the interest of the children shall be paramount.
>
> 3. Child marriage and the betrothal of young girls before puberty shall be
> prohibited, and effective action, including legislation, shall be taken to
> specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration
> of marriages
> in an official registry compulsory.
>
> ARTICLE 7
>
> All provisions of penal codes which constitute discrimination
> against women
> shall be repealed.
>
> ARTICLE 8
>
> All appropriate measures, including legislation, shall be taken to combat
> all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
>
> ARTICLE 9
>
> All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure to girls and women,
> married or unmarried, equal rights with men in education at all
> levels, and
> in particular:
>
> (a) Equal conditions of access to, and study in, educational
> institutions of
> all types, including universities, vocational, technical, technical and
> professional schools;
>
> (b) The same choice of curricula, the same examinations, teaching
> staff with
> qualifications of the same standard, and school premises and equipment of
> the same quality, whether the institutions are coeducational or not;
>
> (c) Equal opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other
> study grants;
>
> (d) Equal opportunities for access to programs of continuing education,
> including adult literacy programs;
>
> (e) Access to educational information to help in insuring the health and
> well-being of families.
>
> ARTICLE 10
>
> All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure to girls and women,
> married or unmarried, equal rights with men in the field of economic and
> social life, and in particular:
>
> (a) The right without discrimination on grounds of marital status or any
> other grounds, to receive vocational training, to work, to free choice of
> profession and employment, and to professional and vocational advancement;
>
> (b) The right to equal remuneration with men and to equality of
> treatment in
> respect of work of equal value;
>
> (c) The right to leave with pay, retirement privileges and provision for
> security in respect of unemployment, sickness, old age or other incapacity
> to work;
>
> (d) The right to receive family allowances on equal terms with men.
>
> 2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on account of marriage
> or maternity and to insure their effective right to work,
> measures shall be
> taken to prevent their dismissal in the event of marriage or maternity and
> to provide paid maternity leave, and the guarantee of returning to former
> employment, and to provide the necessary social services, including
> child-care facilities.
>
> 3. Measures taken to protect women in certain types of work, for reasons
> inherent in their physical nature, shall not be regarded as
> discriminatory.
>
> ARTICLE 11
>
> The principle of equality of rights of men and women demands
> implementation
> in all states in accordance with the principles of the United Nations
> Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>
> Governments, nongovernmental organizations and individuals are urged,
> therefore, to do all in their power to promote the implementation of the
> principles contained in this Declaration.
>
> Analysis
>
> This United Nations Declaration is badly drafted. It contains
> only homilies
> about the rights of children, and very occasional reference to
> giving equal
> rights to men. The blatant example of sexism and discrimination in the
> Declaration is the third clause in Article 10. Also, Article 8 protects
> women but not men against prostitution.
>
> Such as Denning, who was active at the time, would read the
> Declaration as a
> Moral Declaration, not a legal one. It gave carte blanche to
> Denning and his
> disciples to remove the most basic human rights from children,
> and from men.
> It was inevitable that, the scene having been set by documents
> such as this,
> men would lose their civil rights and become second or third
> class citizens.
>
> The intention of this Declaration was that it should improve the lot of
> disadvantaged women in patriarchal societies, for instance in the Middle
> East, where it was ignored. Western countries, which already had their own
> measures for protecting women, acted on the Declaration and so instituted
> the present subservient state for men, particularly married men.
> The lowest
> class in the New Order is of course the divorced man. He receives the full
> brunt of Denning's Moral Courts, losing the right to his present
> and future
> property, and losing the right of access to his children.
>
> Both the letter and the spirit of the Declaration show the climate of
> opinion which led to the present crisis. It is free of the
> concept of equal
> rights between woman and man, and between adult and child. It is
> all special
> pleading. Had we a court of law, we would have some protection
> against this
> sexist drive. However, having only a court of morals run by judges like
> Pickles, our society is helpless against it.
>
> The sex discrimination in the UNO Declaration was further
> buttressed by much
> English legislation, itself plainly guilty of sex discrimination, for
> instance the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, Section 1(1)(a) 2.4;
>
> Direct sex discrimination arises where a person treats a woman, on the
> grounds of her sex, less favourably than he treats, or would treat, a man.
>
> The rest of 2.4 continues in this vein, and so does 2.5 and 2.7
>
> Synthesis
>
> A purple thread runs through from the Ecclesiastical (Moral)
> Courts, through
> the Equity of the Courts of Chancery, to Denning. This thread somewhat
> validates his success in getting rid of predictable law and replacing it
> with an unpredictable moral code.
>
> In the Middle Ages, when the church owned much of the land, it ran the
> Ecclesiastical Courts. These operated in parallel with the King's Courts.
> After centuries of uncertainty, the two systems were finally united in the
> nineteenth century. A moral dimension remained to modify the law
> enforced in
> the King's Courts.
>
> The system deriving from the King's Courts comprises Statute Law
> and Common
> Law, which latter grew out of precedent; these being past
> decisions made by
> judges. A judicial decision would occasionally bear hard on an individual
> whose unusual case had not been foreseen. The solution in the criminal
> courts was to give a Royal pardon. In the civil court, the
> individual would
> suffer, but this was the necessary spur to cause Parliament to enact a new
> statute to prevent a recurrence.
>
> Denning was dissatisfied. While studying law, his lowest marks were in
> jurisprudence. Later, he said that he was not interested in
> technicalities,
> but wanted to do the right thing by the man in front of him. His first
> recourse was to use Interpretation, often leaning over backwards in the
> process and getting his judicial decisions overruled on appeal - something
> that all other judges were anxious to avoid. If he could not force
> interpretation to meet his needs, like the glass slipper and the ugly
> sister's foot, he resorted to abrogating the rule that precedent had to be
> followed in prior cases in a higher court or an equal court. To both these
> habits of his, the senior judicial aristocracy objected vehemently,
> reprimanding him and overturning his judgements on appeal.
>
> On the few occasions when these manoeuvres failed, Denning resorted to
> Equity, leading to his being called "Equity Denning". The 1984 Shorter
> Oxford Dictionary describes Equity as "that which is fair and
> right" It also
> calls Equity "a system of law existing side by side with the common and
> statute law, and superseding these, when they conflict with it". A typical
> example of the mess that is the law is that the 1905 Harmsworth
> Encyclopaedia contradicts itself and the Oxford Dictionary when it says;
> "Equity follows the law - i.e. equity is not in conflict with, but
> subsidiary to, the law."
>
> Equity is the surviving vestigial Ecclesiastical Court, enforcing
> morality,
> not law. Unwittingly, Denning replaced the rule of law by the rule of
> morality. His error was to think that only one moral code
> existed, and that
> his code, of the Anglican village church, would survive. However,
> even as he
> was imposing it on our courts, the Anglican Church imploded. The resulting
> vacuum in our courts, now without morals or law, sucked in today's ruling
> ethical systems - radical feminism and masonic morality. The
> former controls
> most of the media, and nearly all senior judges are masons. Far from
> introducing an era of low church christianity when he destroyed our law,
> Denning imposed a court-enforced feminism and masonry onto us.
>
> The reason why Denning was able to subvert the English legal
> system was that
> it was never overtly stated that, when merging, the Ecclesiastical Courts
> came to an end. The confusion that Denning exploited is
> demonstrated by the
> quotations from Oxford and Harmsworth.
>
> The greatest tyranny exists in those fields of law where the interests of
> the radical feminists, who control the media, match the interests of the
> masons - the senior judges. For instance, both ideologies assert that a
> woman is not responsible for her actions.
>
> .... an interesting and yet unsettled problem, the origin of the
> Canon law.
> The truth seems to be that the Imperial Roman law did not satisfy the
> morality of the Christian communities, and this is the most
> probable reason
> why another body of rules grew up by its side and ultimately
> almost rivalled
> it.
>
> - Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions,
> pub. 1875, reprinted 1966, p25.
>
> Denning is a throw-back to those Christian communities.
>
> .... Equity, being that part of the law which was developed and formerly
> administered by the Court of Chancery .... The Court of Chancery worked on
> the principles of conscience and fairness, and the early
> Chancellors, being
> ecclesiastics, probably borrowed something from canon law. It will be seen
> that 'Equity', as meaning the principles formerly applied in the Court of
> Chancery, is a part of English law, while 'equity' in the sense of
> conscience or fairness is one of the sources of English law - equity is a
> source of Equity.
>
> - O. Hood Phillips and A. H. Hudson, O. Hood Phillips' First Book
> of English
> Law, 1948, reprinted 1988, pub. Sweet & Maxwell.
>
> The quotation shows a flow from the mediaeval ecclesiastical courts with
> their canon law, through Equity in the Court of Chancery, to Denning. This
> flimsy thread somewhat legitimises Denning's campaign against law and in
> favour of religious morality. It is why Simonds and other Law Lords found
> Denning's depredations on the law so difficult to counter.
>
> Phillips continues on page 18;
>
> The significance of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the development
> of English
> law is that .... .... their jurisdiction over all men for moral offences
> meant that they were concerned with questions of marriage and legitimacy;
> and also that they came to interest themselves in wills and personal
> property ....
>
> In 1945, at the very early age of 46, Denning first became a High Court
> judge in the unfashionable division which included Divorce. The quotations
> above show why he felt he could reverse the flow of history. His monstrous
> behaviour was possible because this thread gave him some sort of pedigree,
> or precedent. He replaced law with Equity. His high religious and moral
> sense drove him that way, and the peculiar nature of divorce - its
> particular closeness to what should have been the lesser
> ecclesiastical and
> Equity origins of the law - made him so bold as to redirect the
> whole system
> back towards the mediaeval ecclesiastical courts. In his biography of
> Denning, Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery
> Division), pub. Weidenfield 1991, wrote;
>
> He thought that if law was divorced from morality it would lose
> the respect
> of the people. The law should reflect public opinion and he did
> not want to
> do anything which might offend public opinion.
>
> Thus, a centuries-old fault line, which presaged the present
> collapse, runs
> through the English legal system. It is here outlined in the 1995
> Britannica
> Micropaedia 4 p534;
>
> By the end of the 13th century the English king's common-law courts had
> largely limited the relief available in civil cases to the payment of
> damages and to the recovery of the possession of property. They
> had refused
> to extend and diversify their types of relief so as to meet the
> needs of new
> and more complex situations. Disappointed litigants had turned to the king
> with petitions for justice because the courts had afforded either
> no remedy
> or one that was ineffective. These petitions were referred to the lord
> chancellor, who was the king's principal minister. By the early
> years of the
> 14th century the petitions were going directly to the chancellor,
> and by the
> middle of that century the Chancery was recognized as a new and distinct
> court.
>
> The developments thus initiated resulted in the fashioning by the
> chancellor
> of new and equitable remedies. .... ....
>
> .... For generations the chancellors had not considered
> themselves bound by
> precedents or rules of law; emphasis had been put mainly upon the
> discretionary treatment of the needs of the individual case.
>
> However, the weakness of Denning's position is indicated further on;
>
> .... From the mid-16th century, however, the chancellors were
> usually common
> lawyers, who began shaping equity into an established set of rules. By the
> middle of the 17th century the equity administered by the Court
> of Chancery
> had become a recognized part of the law of the land; equity gave
> [consistent] justice according to law rather than [inconsistent] executive
> justice. ....
>
> It appears that Denning exploits the history of Equity more as a
> justification for judges to create new law (and ignore
> parliament), than for
> judges to be unpredictable. However, both malign effects result from the
> combination of an anti-law Denning and the disruptive history of Equity.
> Both take power away from parliament and into the hands of the judges, who
> in their turn hand it over to a combination of masonic morality and the
> controllers of the media, who turn out to be largely the radical
> feminists.
>
> A lurid metaphor for Denning's overthrow of our courts is the
> replacement of
> secular courts by Islamic courts in Iran. Although possibly more extreme
> than in England, the arguments and issues are the same.
>
>
>
> The House Radical
>
> Blair, Cheri Booth, Judge Pickles, Lord Woolf and so many others can be
> described as 'House Radicals". Many years ago, I coined the aphorism;
>
> The role of the radical in reinforcing a reactionary status quo.
>
> The trouble with the reaction to all these people, even when they say that
> the legal fabric is collapsing, is that they create the impression that
> something is being done to put things right; that enough
> concerned souls are
> active, so all will be well. Chris Mullin and Ludovic Kennedy are
> concerned
> with particular cases, and the impression can be gained that they are able
> to keep things more or less right. The same is true of the various
> arbitration bodies which seek to replace some of the law's demesnes. The
> concept of total collapse is in any way difficult to comprehend. A good
> example on those lines is the 1995 Interim Woolf Report, which is
> more rabid
> than I am in its condemnation of the present 'system'. The impression
> created is that reform is on the way, even though he cites the
> many earlier
> reports that have been ignored.
>
> I attend many different fringe organisations where individuals and groups
> have discovered serious flaws in the 'system' and burrow their way into
> them. This is pathetic, much as the man who found that the Hiroshima Fire
> Department failed to fulfil the city's needs is pathetic. One can see them
> vying for credit for having studied one tiny cluster of trees more
> meticulously and better than the next man, while ignoring the
> forest. Often,
> these worthy souls persist in examining detail because they
> cannot face the
> idea of a First World country which lacks a functioning legal system, and
> which will continue in that state for some time to come. They also become
> socialised into the current 'system' by wanting some reward for the hours,
> days, weeks, months and sometimes years that they have spent investigating
> it. They will regard Robin Gay and me, who realise that there is no longer
> any system, as destructive or ignorant, trying to avoid and minimise their
> arduous research. I can only assure them that Robin Gay did more research
> than they before he came to the conclusion that we do not have a
> functioning
> system; that his work could be regarded as wasted. The example in footnote
> 15 on page 156 of Zander's previously referenced book is only one of the
> multifarious examples which lead inexorably to the conclusion
> that we have a
> charade, not a legal system;
>
> This rule was laid down in 1845 by the Justices of Denbighshire and the
> right of a court to make its own rules was upheld in the face of
> a challenge
> by the Divisional Court. .... The Recorder said: 'each Court has its own
> rule - the Court is complete master of its own procedure.
>
> This ridiculous assertion, upheld in a higher court, does not on its own
> make a summer of discontent. However, it is only one of many,
> many examples
> from the record of the illegal attitude of the English courts,
> which is much
> more pronounced today than it was in 1845. It is such misdemeanours in the
> past which helped Denning in his later wholesale assault on the
> rule of law,
> replacing it by the Rule of Morality, to be replaced in due course by
> masonic and radical feminist morality, which today's courts enforce - with
> the enforcement of massive Costs on the side. It explains why a judge is
> agile in labelling a too successful litigant a 'vexatious
> litigant' (Section
> 42) and banning him from all our courts in the future. The vexing thing is
> that the litigant was citing law, court procedures and precedent, where he
> should have been citing morality. The ruling moral code requires
> acceptance
> that a judge can do no wrong, and has the supremely moral stance.
>
>
>
> The Future
>
> Tony Blair twice said on national television that the criminal justice
> system is on the point of collapse. David Rose, in his book "In
> the Name of
> the Law, The Collapse of Criminal Justice," pub. Cape 1996, argues for a
> move to the continental inquisitorial system as the remedy.
> Ludovic Kennedy,
> a long time campaigner against miscarriages, also proposes a move towards
> the inquisitorial system. The same is true of me and of Robin Gay.
>
> The problem is that Denning successfully gained infinite
> discretion for the
> judges, who can now ignore the law. Our current judges, and also
> our present
> solicitors and barristers, would ignore such a change. Similarly, it is
> absolutely certain that no laws passed will affect the behaviour of judges
> in the secret family courts for at least fifteen years. Under Discretion,
> the judges will ignore them, as they ignore the current law.
>
> The real problem is how to wrest the administration of the law from our
> coterie of judges who, egged on by Denning, have a contempt for
> the rule of
> law and will never enforce law. My answer is an extended version of the
> reform proposed by Kennedy and Rose. This is to establish a new system of
> law. It will begin with a new way of entering into contractual agreements.
> (A contract entered into in England at present is worthless, because our
> courts, engrossed in Costs, are incapable of supporting the
> injured party.)
> The two parties will travel to northern France, and sign their contract
> there, to return thereafter to England. The big legal case that is facing
> us, and which must be undertaken as soon as possible, is when it is
> established whether such a contract, signed in France, about activity in
> England, can be enforced in a court of law set up under the guidance, but
> not the control, of the northern France legal system, an inquisitorial
> system. These alternative courts, operating alongside and in opposition to
> the English courts, will gradually take over as the present English system
> lapses into total disrepute and are ignored.
>
> In England, tribunals have periodically been set up with the
> express purpose
> of excluding professional lawyers, but again and again, Denning
> infiltrated
> lawyers back into these tribunals against the wishes of parliament. In a
> similar manner, our new legal system risks being infiltrated by English
> professional lawyers. As a safeguard, one of the starting principles for
> these new courts will be that anyone qualified in English law will be
> debarred from practising in the new inquisitorial courts, where their
> expertise in the earlier, adversarial system will be inappropriate anyway.
> That battle will also have to be fought through in the European Court.
>
> There will be total opposition to these developments by
> parliament, which is
> packed with practising lawyers. However, as more and more people realise
> that they cannot even enter into an enforceable contract, the pressure for
> an alternative, like the pressure over the Poll Tax, will become
> unstoppable. One sanction by the voter will be the determination that,
> regardless of party, a voter will not vote for a candidate with legal
> qualifications. In this way, we will begin to establish a Commons with an
> objective view of the current crisis in the law.
>
> The author is willing to act as clearing house for initiatives towards
> setting up the new legal system.
>
>
>
> Index
>
> B Abel-Smith 74
>
> 'Access to Justice' vi, 22, 61
>
> Gerald and Eva Adshead 38, 41, 47
>
> 'Alice in Wonderland' vii, 51
>
> Anamartic 67 et seqq
>
> Barbara Amiel 30, 84
>
> Anglican Church morality 6, 92
>
> Judge Brian Appleby, QC 27
>
> Argot 22, 23
>
> Assertiveness training 18
>
> David Barnard 61
>
> Norman Barry 58
>
> Beck 41
>
> Beeching 43
>
> Mary Bell 38
>
> Bennetston Hall 47
>
> Jeremy Bentham 56
>
> Basil Bernstein 39
>
> Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls 24
>
> Birmingham Six 59, 76, 77, 79
>
> Tony Blair 97
>
> 'Bleak House' 52
>
> Boarding school 16
>
> Cheri Booth 95
>
> Bribery 6, 27, 39, 42, 63, 65
>
> British servicemen 13
>
> Broadmoor 13
>
> Brogue 22, 53, 54, 55
>
> The Brotherhood 9, 18, 39, 49
>
> 'The Brothers Karamazov' 36
>
> Brownlees 63, 64
>
> Butler-Sloss 53
>
> Lewis Carroll 51
>
> 'The Castle' 42
>
> Catholic church 10, 77
>
> Catt Spiral 67, 74
>
> Chancery 22, 23, 55, 72, 73, 91, 92, 93, 94
>
> Geoffrey Cheshire 72
>
> Child Support Agency 50
>
> Cleveland 15, 20, 21
>
> Paul Condon vi, 40
>
> Contempt of Court 51
>
> Chief of Metropolitan Police Paul Condon vi, 40
>
> Ros Coward 10
>
> Court of Appeal 18, 43, 53, 55, 59, 60, 63, 70, 73
>
> Sir Frederick Crawford 78
>
> Crown Prosecution Service 25, 27, 33
>
> 'The Crucible' 34
>
> Cummins 41, 47
>
> Frank Curran 27
>
> Cyprus, Cyprus Government 13, 14
>
> Janet Daley 84
>
> Daily Express 33
>
> Daily Mail 44, 84
>
> Daily Star 27
>
> Daily Telegraph vii, 10, 21, 25, 26, 27, 70, 84
>
> Dankwerts 73
>
> Defence 22, 23
>
> Lord Denning 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 28, 34, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57 et seqq, 64, 72
> et seqq, 79, 81, 84, 90, 91 - 97,
>
> 'Lord Denning' 55, 72
>
> Donald Dewar 55, 79
>
> Charles Dickens 52
>
> Angus Diggle 30
>
> 'The Discipline of Law' 79
>
> Doggerel 22
>
> Austen Donnellan 30
>
> Dostoevsky 36
>
> Andrea Dworkin 1, 31, 33
>
> Ecclesiastical Courts 91, 92, 93
>
> Umberto Eco 10
>
> Kate Eddey 76
>
> Dominic Egan 65
>
> Captain Elwes 66
>
> Ben Emerson 27
>
> The English Legal System 76
>
> Equal Opportunities Commission 31, 33
>
> Equity 5, 6, 76, 81, 91
>
> 'Error of Judgement' 59, 78, 79
>
> European Court 19, 35, 36, 39, 54, 97
>
> Evening Standard vi
>
> 'The Family Court in Action' 61
>
> 'Farewell to the Family?' 84
>
> Ben Felton 25
>
> 'The Female Eunuch' 15
>
> Feminazi 18
>
> Feminists 92
>
> Forgery 6, 27, 63, 65
>
> Freemasons, see Masons
>
> Robin Gay iii, 20, 79, 95, 97
>
> Susan Gooch 30
>
> 'The Grand Inquisitor' 36
>
> Germaine Greer 15, 18
>
> John A. G. Griffith 1, 59, 79
>
> Guardian vii, 10
>
> Guildford 77
>
> Hailsham 4
>
> Halcyon 13
>
> Harringey 20
>
> Lillian Hellman 71
>
> Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery
> Division) 55, 72
> et seqq, 93
>
> Eugen Hockenjos 53
>
> O. Hood Phillips' First Book of English Law 92
>
> O. Hood Phillips and A. H. Hudson 92
>
> Frances Hughes 61
>
> 'In search of justice' 74
>
> 'In the Name of the Law' 97
>
> The Independent 19, 84
>
> The Industry 22, 23, 24, 29, 36, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 63, 65, 67
>
> Jesus 10, 11
>
> Jesuit 10, 37
>
> Paul Johnson 44
>
> Michael Joseph 65
>
> Jowitt 4
>
> 'Judge for Yourself' 63, 70
>
> 'Judges' 54
>
> 'Judges on Trial' 43
>
> 'Judging Judges' 59
>
> Jurisprudence 11, 72, 76, 91
>
> Justice 2, 3, 4
>
> Franz Kafka 42
>
> Sarah Keays 38
>
> Ludovic Kennedy 95, 97
>
> King's Courts 91
>
> Panos Koupparis 13, 14
>
> Language 22
>
> Law 2, 3, 4, 5
>
> Law Lords 19, 53, 93
>
> 'Lawyers and the Public interest' 9
>
> 'Lawyers can seriously damage your health' 65
>
> 'Law's Empire' 1
>
> 'Learning the Law' 23
>
> Simon Lee 1, 10, 12, 59
>
> Legal Aid 24, 36, 41, 43 - 48, 53, 54, 66
>
> 'Liberating women .... From Modern Feminism' 58
>
> Liz Lightfoot 41, 48
>
> Peter Lilley 44, 46, 55, 79
>
> Heinz Lipschutz iv, 15
>
> Litigant in person 22, 23, 37, 55, 79
>
> Lord Chancellor Mackay vii, 19, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 64
>
> Lottery 41, 70
>
> Catherine Mackinnon 31
>
> Mafia 34, 35, 39, 42, 43
>
> Magna Carta vi
>
> Sir Henry Sumner Maine 92
>
> John Major 50
>
> Lady Mallalieu, QC 26
>
> Man as Witch 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 76, 83
>
> Masons 7, 11, 18, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 49, 71, 73, 78, 92
>
> Maxwell 34, 67
>
> Lord McLuskey 34
>
> Merchant of Venice 2, 5
>
> Mercy 2
>
> Kurt Metzer 78
>
> Henry Miller 34
>
> Barbara Mills vi
>
> Morality 37
>
> Patricia Morgan 84
>
> Dr. John Morris 73
>
> H Muir vii
>
> Chris Mullin M.P.59, 77, 78, 79, 95
>
> Andrew Neil 84
>
> Noble Cause Corruption 40
>
> The Observer 16
>
> Odgers 22
>
> Orkney 15, 20, 21
>
> Ouster 61 et seqq
>
> Anne Owers vii
>
> Pankhurst 18
>
> David Pannick 54
>
> Patois 22, 23, 24, 61
>
> Dr. Michael Pelling 53, 60, 63
>
> Perjury 6, 61 et seqq
>
> Judge Pickles 16, 51, 57, 60, 63, 70, 71, 81, 90, 95
>
> Plain English Commission 24
>
> Pleadings 22
>
> The Police 20, 25, 27, 29, 34, 39, 40, 49, 50, 63, 65, 77, 79
>
> 'The Politics of the Judiciary' 1, 79
>
> Portia 2, 3, 5
>
> Portsmouth 29
>
> Portsmouth University 25
>
> Prankherd 38
>
> Queen's Bench 23, 43
>
> Caroline Quest 58
>
> Rape 24 -33
>
> Radical Feminists 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 57, 61, 84, 85, 92,
> 94, 96
>
> Righteousness 5, 6
>
> Rochdale 15, 20
>
> David Rose 97
>
> Joshua Rosenberg 43
>
> Rough Justice 59, 78
>
> Royal Commission vii
>
> Salem 15, 34
>
> Jasmine Salisbury 19
>
> 'Scandals in Justice' 14
>
> 'The Search for Justice' 43
>
> Secret courts 53 et seqq
>
> Sex war 20
>
> Sexual molestation 20
>
> Sexual perversion 16
>
> Shakespeare 5
>
> T Shaw vii, 21
>
> Simon Shetreet 43
>
> Simonds 4, 93
>
> Sir Clive Sinclair 61, 62, 67, 74
>
> Peter Snow 61
>
> Social services 20
>
> Southern Belle 31
>
> Southern White 31
>
> The Soviet Mafia 42
>
> Robert Stevens 74
>
> Circuit Judge Stockdale vii, 63, 64
>
> 'Straight from the Bench' 57, 60, 71
>
> Suffragettes 18
>
> Sunday Times 30, 41, 48, 84
>
> Lord Chief Justice Taylor vi, 6, 10, 19, 57, 84
>
> Thatcher 1, 42, 50, 73
>
> Judge Thorpe 63
>
> The Times 24, 25, 34, 66
>
> Today 28
>
> Tolstoy 38
>
> Ray Tooth 65
>
> 'Toys in the Attic' 71
>
> 'The Trial' 42
>
> UNO 81, 83, 86 et seqq
>
> Arkady Vaksberg 42
>
> Vexatious litigant 37
>
> Penny Wark 28
>
> David Warren 25, 33
>
> Watford County Court vii, 34, 35, 42
>
> Master Weingarten 22, 23
>
> Helen Wilkinson 84
>
> Glanville Williams 23
>
> Wimbledon Common 49
>
> Wizard of Oz 5, 51
>
> Lord Woolf vi, 22, 51, 61, 64, 78, 95
>
> Barry Worrall 51
>
> Michael Zander 9, 95
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>

________________End of message______________________

Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.