judicial eye If you examine past and present prime ministers they ALL have one thing in common. Thatcher showed it, Blair showed it and Brown is now showing it. In time , most if not all political leaders begin to reveal serious flaws in their character to the point they begin to act like megalomaniacs believing only THEY are correct in decisions that eventually ensure their demise. They end up disturbed in their thinking and their decisions ultimately cause enormous damage to all the victims of their flawed policies. There is something about holding power for to long that causes a chain reaction in the ego's of those who seek leadership of political parties.

However the power within the United Kingdom does not reside with Prime Ministers, the REAL power of the British crown lies within the hallowed walls of British courts were an endless procession of victims are BROKEN and made destitute thanks to a hierarchy of power that remains unaccountable, independent and who make decisions SOLELY for the benefit of Britains EVIL and corrupt crown. Anyone who has faced a British judge , but especially a Scottish judge, will realise the same traits that deeply affect the thinking of British prime ministers is even more exaggerated as at least prime ministers can and usually do get BOOTED out of office once they go off the rails into la-la land. However there are thousands of judicial monsters and menaces who despite showing the same warped and deranged thinking remain sitting on the bench for LIFE , very few if any can be removed and the main cause of the internal destruction of British society because of this vast army of disturbed powermongers who hide their flawed thinking behind their robes and regalia.

What is even worse is that they are secret members of the satanic club of Great Britain and are mostly self appointed high level masons with a structure that ensures no matter how extreme and disturbed their decisions are, that network of satanic power gives them even more protection. That at the enormous expense of all the poor souls that have been left penniless and homeless because of an unaccountable judiciary and why they are so resistant to opening up their secret star chambers which would then expose the harm that they have inflicted, for far to long, in the dark corridors of power that they handle with menace. Our group have many years of evidence that show clearly how this monstrous unaccountable system is the most pressing issue that needs to be addressed before Britain can restore confidence in all the structures that used to be there to protect our citizens . It is now the most enormous threat to British life and in the same league as a world war without the physical damage but with the massive psychological damage that judges have been expert at manufacturing while abusing the unsuspecting public for far to long. The British crown and its judiciary steal more peoples assets than all other criminals put together.

So what do the British corporate media do about all of this? Other than regularly promoting the evils of judicial power, they have been complicit with the cover up of the thousands of abuses that take place every day across the country by a judicial mafia who use libel laws to keep any dissent at bay in a corporate media tied to this enormously damaging power and control. That we intend to EXPOSE across the globe while waiting on a mass media that has failed the UK for far to long. The days of the pompous ,arrogant ,aloof and deranged judicial thinking will come to an end that we have never had any doubt. Their victims are organised and have a platform the British media have refused time and again to provide that would have EXPOSED their tyranny.


  • More on judicial corruption here

    Records key to cases against two corrupt judges may get destroyed

    Lawyers who argue that thousands of juveniles were sentenced to prison terms by corrupt judges are petitioning a US federal court in Pennsylvania to preserve the case record so they can sue for damages. Attorneys are seeking to stop the destruction of files related to the cases of an unknown number of juveniles who received prison sentences for minor offenses from two judges who were later found to have accepted bribes from private prison companies. The petition before a federal judge in Scranton, Pennsylvania came after the state’s Supreme Court in March agreed to expunge the youths’ criminal records, but also ordered the destruction of their files. Without at least one copy of the relevant files, attorney Lourdes Rosado told AFP, the juveniles will be unable to pursue a civil case seeking damages.

    “The federal court needs that information in order to decide whether or not that claim is valuable and whether or not the children are entitled to relief,” said Rosado, associate director of the Juvenile Law Center, a non-profit group which advocates for children’s rights. After months of procedural battles, the state Supreme Court agreed last week to preserve under seal a copy of documents related to 400 juveniles who have so far been identified as victims and have filed lawsuits.

    But, according to Rosado, the total number of victims “could be up to 6,500? and attorneys are now calling for a class action lawsuit to be certified for all the children who appeared before the judges between 2003 and 2008. Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania admitted last February to having accepted 2.6 million dollars from private prisons in exchange for giving juveniles sentences that were disproportionate to their offenses.

    Ciavarella and Conahan have filed a petition seeking the dismissal of lawsuits seeking damages, citing “the doctrine of judicial immunity.” Among those sentenced by the judges was a young man who received nine months for having stolen a jar of nutmeg worth four dollars, and another juvenile who was sentenced to three months for stealing some change from a car.

    trial by jury Innocent until proved guilty

    A criminal trial is to go ahead at a Crown Court without a jury. Why worry? We are told that the case is exceptional, that the decision has been taken for fear of 'jury tampering'. What do we know about this tampering? Nothing, actually. Evidence about it has been given only in secret. I am, I have to say, unsure why this should have had to be so. Was MI6 involved? And there was, in any case, an alternative. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, rejected the other possible course - holding the trial with a jury put under protective measures.

    This would have cost about £6million and involved 82 police officers which the Judge said was an 'unreasonable' drain on the public purse and police time. The issue will also not be allowed to go before the House of Lords, which seems odd to me given its importance. While delivering his judgement, The Lord Chief Justice thundered that 'In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It is properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a defendant.' Then he added the less thunderous get-out clause 'unless and until the right is amended or circumscribed by express legislation'. That was the important bit.

    He concluded, in explanation of his 'historic' decision to breach the principles of centuries of English liberty, that 'the danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant'. In this case, three men are accused of carrying out a robbery at the Menzies World Cargo warehouse at Heathrow in 2004. According to The Guardian, 'the police had been watching an employee of the warehouse and suspected a robbery was going to take place. Only one man has ever been jailed for the robbery, a supergrass who pleaded guilty after giving police information. During the armed raid six masked men rounded up members of staff at gunpoint and shots were fired at a supervisor. The robbers were caught on CCTV.' This extraordinary change in the English justice system is allowed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 44 and 46, which came into force in 2007. The sections are quite tightly drawn, and a judge has to be convinced that tampering has taken place or that there is a grave danger of it.

    Why does this worry me? Quite a lot of criminal lawyers say they would prefer trials in front of judges, point out that miscarriages of justice frequently happen with jury trial, and so on. I accept all these points, though I also know of jury trials where it is plain that the jurors have acted with subtlety and discrimination, quite possibly preventing miscarriages of justice. My concern is that, without juries, the power of the state is far too great. And that once you have accepted one excuse for abandoning jury trial, which is costly and makes lawyers work harder for their money, you have lost the battle for the principle and it will only be a matter of time before (probably under pressure from the EU, where independent juries are largely unknown outside the British Isles) the whole idea is quietly dispensed with. In a way, the Crown Prosecution Service already functions as a sort of continental Examining Magistrate system, and 'anti-terror' law is fast undermining the principle of Habeas Corpus, increasingly permitting the prejudicial and dangerous lengthy pre-trial detention that is a feature of continental criminal procedure. Increasingly, the authorities can ruin your life without ever having to prove anything against you, and put irresistible pressure on you to cooperate in your own prosecution.

    Hard cases make bad law, and the issue of criminal trials is in many ways a red herring. The outcomes of most criminal trials probably wouldn't be significantly different if we had a non-jury system. It's the principle of innocence till proved guilty that's so important. Modern rules of evidence, the general feebleness of the police and courts and the CPS, seem to me to have far more impact upon the general power of the law against criminals than the occasional alleged case of jury tampering. While researching my most reviled and abused book A Brief History of Crime, I spent a fascinating day at the enormous Liverpool Crown Court complex, where I found what I described as 'a near-breakdown of respect for justice', including widespread intimidation of juries and witnesses, about which nobody did anything at all. The whole experience is described in the chapter entitled Twelve Angry Persons. The fault lay not in the jury system, but in the general weakness of the police and the authorities, resulting from 40 years of cultural revolution and Fabian legislation.

    In the same chapter I noted a general hostility in the English state towards jury trial, disturbingly expressed in Lord Justice Auld's 'Review of the Criminal Courts' in October 2001. I warned that the Blair government was using the growth of crime under its rule as a pretext to limit liberty. But my main point was this, and I repeat it now in a shorter form. Jury trial is a happy accident, never willingly or knowingly handed out by authority in this country, but fortunately arising out of Magna Carta and sustained by a series of important court victories since then. The most important guarantee of freedom in the world was never 'democracy', often a threat to freedom via the tyranny of the majority. It is the existence of independent juries, and the presumption of innocence which this requires.

    In a non-jury country, a trial is an assembly of servants of the state, meeting to decide what to do with somebody they already believe to be guilty. In a jury country it is a trial with an uncertain outcome, in which the Judge is compelled to be impartial and the prosecution must prove its case. The criminal law, in these circumstances, simply cannot be used to put away people the state does not like. The powers of the police against the law-abiding are severely limited. The relation between individual and state is transformed. Faced with having to give up elections or jury trial, I would have no hesitation in saving jury trial. It is a much greater restraint on the state. I explain in my book that juries in this country were badly weakened in the 1960s. First they were damaged by an egalitarian campaign which abolished the old property qualification, and failed to replace it (as they should have done) with a higher age limit or an educational test. This means that an 18-year-old with no experience of life and a very limited education can now ruin your life in afternoon. The property qualification ensured that experienced and mature people, with a stake in society predominated on juries. It could easily have been reformed to allow women to sit on juries in equal numbers. I think this ill-thought-out and rash decision to open juries to all but criminals and the certifiably insane might explain some of the odder verdicts in recent years.

    Second, they were wounded by the introduction of majority verdicts, again on the grounds (as now, never detailed or proven) that there was a menace of jury tampering. This is immensely damaging. As the film Twelve Angry Men shows, a single determined juror can by sheer persistence and courage prevent a miscarriage of justice - in either direction. The introduction of majority verdicts means that he or she can simply be over-ridden. I am still amazed that this momentous change was pushed through with so little opposition. Now, once again on a rather shaky and unsubstantiated pretext, the absolute right to jury trial is being salami-sliced away. If jury tampering is so serious, when are we going to see exemplary prosecutions of those involved? Have there been any such prosecutions? I have heard of none.

    It is interesting that the question of cost was raised, as a reason for not adopting the alternative of special protection. A principle such as universal jury trial seems to me to be worth quite a lot of money, certainly more than we spend (say) on second homes for MPs or the armies of facilitators and outreach workers employed by local authorities? Does this country really not have £6million available to defend one of its most ancient liberties? As for 82 police officers, all you need to do is postpone a few diversity training courses and hey presto! There will be hundreds of extra officers instantly available for guard duty. But if we are prepared, in general, to abandon justice on the grounds of cost, then the argument that jury trial is in itself too expensive will become increasingly powerful in the years to come, as we turn into a poor country.

    price COURT IN THE ACT
    Judge ruled on vice cases.. but paid for sex in secret

    A SENIOR married judge had a secret nine-month fling with a £250-a-night RENT BOY, the News of the World can reveal. Judge Gerald Price QC, 60, was so besotted with 25-year-old Christopher Williams he set him up with a FLAT, paid him a monthly ALLOWANCE and let him sit on the bench in court as he presided over TRIALS. Williams said: "His business is truth but he's been living a lie."

    The judge is under investigation by The Ministry of Justice today after the News of the World discovered he risked his marriage and his career for a passionate affair with the male prostitute. Judge Price grew so obsessed with the rent boy 35 years his junior that he let him sit next to him in COURT while he jailed criminals. Price gave 25-year-old Christopher Williams unfettered access to three Crown Courts - an abuse of power that will horrify the authorities. The judge also used his experience to help Williams beat a public order rap - at the same time as paying him a monthly £420 for what he called a sex "season ticket". Williams even got to see sensitive confidential trial papers and defendants' criminal records. Now the £129,000-a-year lawyer and father-of-two faces a charge sheet of his own as we detail the affair conducted behind the back of his trusting wife, revealing shocking lapses of judgement in which he:

    PAID for gay sex in a hotel despite ruling on VICE cases.
    RENTED two flats for Williams as love nests for their secret fling.
    EXPOSED himself to the threat of blackmail.
    PRETENDED to court officials that Williams was a law student.
    TOOK Williams away on official business, staying in hotel rooms.
    PROPOSED on one knee to the rent boy, vowing to leave his wife.

    Last night in an exclusive interview gay escort Williams said: "What Gerald did was dangerous. His business was truth but he lived a lie. He was at real risk of being blackmailed. Imagine the power a criminal could wield over a judge with info like this."

    Price is a senior circuit judge who has sat for nine years in Swansea, Cardiff and Carmarthen, South Wales, ruling on hundreds of cases. His conduct is in clear breach of The Guide To Judicial Conduct - the rule book for the judiciary. It states: "It is necessary for the continuity of the system of law as we know it that there be standards of conduct, both in and out of court. . .

    "A judge must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, a judge shall conduct himself or herself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office." Judge Price's affair with Williams brings the judiciary into disrepute and is in contravention of the guide's sections covering impartiality, integrity and propriety. We first informed Price of our investigation nine days ago. He now faces an inquiry by the Ministry of Justice complaints department but so far has not been suspended. Judge Price - who has stood unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Tory candidate in THREE general elections and has been an Anglican lay preacher since 1969 - first contacted Williams for sex through an escort website last September.

    Williams said: "I had a random email from him. I replied and told him my fee was £80. Then we arranged to meet up. "He picked me up at the train station in his convertible Volvo and we did the deal at the Days Inn hotel in the Sarn Park services on the M4. It was the day before his 60th birthday. He told me I was his birthday present to himself. "At first he wanted to talk. Then we had sex. I didn't know he was a judge - just a married man who worked in Swansea. It ended with a 'thank you' and he dropped me off at Bridgend station."

    Judge Price had called himself "Graham" but made his true identity clear to Williams at a second meeting four days later. This time it was at the judge's second home near Carmarthen, Dyfed. Williams said: "It was an overnight stay so it cost him £250. He always paid cash. His wife Theresa did operatics and those nights she'd stay at the family's main house in Cowbridge. "The Carmarthen house is absolutely gorgeous, a half-a-mile drive down a dirt track. It's a magnificent big place with outbuildings and an old water mill. "Things started with general chit chat, getting to know each other, and he admitted he was a judge. He was really worried and begged me not to tell anyone about us. "We had an Indian which we picked up from Lampeter and drank lots of wine and vodka.

    "Then we spent the night in the double bed in his adult son's room." Next day Judge Price took the breathtaking risk of introducing Williams into the heart of his professional life at Carmarthen court. Williams said: "Security tried to stop me following Gerald in but he said, 'Oh no, he's with me' and I was escorted to the judges' chambers. That day I sat in the press gallery. But he was keen for me to get more involved." Quickly the judge became infatuated with Williams, seeing him almost every day. "He'd come up after work and we'd go to a local pub in Merthyr Tydfil," recalled Williams. "No sex, just drinks. "It was only sexual when he had a few hours free, once or twice a week." But soon the cost got too much for the judge. Williams said: "That's when he came up with the idea of a 'season ticket'. My response was 'Like a bus pass?' It ended up as a monthly allowance of £420 in cash."

    Now the pair were firmly ensconced in each other's lives, the judge set about making Williams a regular face at court. That was despite being known for ruling on vice cases, including an order to snatch every penny owned by brothel madam Julie Hyett - a policeman's wife - giving her a 15-month suspended jail term. Williams told us: "I sat on the bench next to Gerald for at least five days in Cardiff, three in Swansea, and once in Carmarthen. Security knew who I was and I was never stopped or hindered. Gerald passed me off as a law student. "I was also in his private chambers behind the courtroom. That's where I caught sight of a lot of court files and criminal records - stuff only the judge and counsel should see."

    Price was well aware of the risks he was taking by flaunting his lover so brazenly in court. Williams said: "We were having a drink with a gay barrister friend in February and he told Gerald that having me sat on the bench was a lapse in judgement and very unprofessional. He warned that serious questions could be asked." In December the judge used his position to secure an apartment for trysts while he sat in Cardiff. "We used the title His Honour Judge Gerald Price just to help get the flat," said Williams. "A landlord is a lot more trusting then." The judge was now regularly using the cover of official business to be with his young lover. Williams said: "He was on a sexual offences seminar at Warwick University in November and I went with him. We stayed at the Glebe Hotel for three nights and had sex every night.

    "The next trip was to London in December. He was on the recruitment panel for the Ministry of Justice finding new judges. "We stayed mainly at the Citadines Hotel on Northumberland Avenue near Trafalgar Square. He told me he'd claim the cost from the ministry. We travelled up on a Sunday evening and came back on a Friday afternoon. In the evenings we went to the theatre with seats booked in his name." It was while returning from a London visit that Williams ran into trouble with British Transport Police, charged with a public order offence for being drunk on the train.

    "The case was due to be heard at Cardiff but Gerald helped me get it sidelined," said Williams. "He went through my statements and charge sheet marking important areas that could help my case. Then he photocopied passages from Stone's Justice Manual which showed the arguments I could use in defence. I was able to keep picking out points of law until it just disappeared." Williams was eventually bound over to keep the peace for six months. Soon the judge abandoned the sex 'season ticket' in favour of financing Williams' lifestyle.

    He took out a tenancy on a £550-a-month marina flat near Swansea courthouse so the pair could meet regularly for sex in the afternoons. The landlords confirmed to us that Judge Price DID take the tenancy and that they had seen him at the flat with Williams. They claimed they are now chasing the lawyer for unpaid rent. Judge Price also paid for Williams' mobile phone and food while giving him cash handouts and access to his personal credit card as perks.

    So confident had Price become in his secret double life, he even introduced Williams to his 56-year-old wife Theresa at a rugby match. Williams said: "She asked me if I had a girlfriend and I said I was single. She seemed nice and when it was time to go I kissed her on both cheeks. But Gerald later told me she'd guessed I was gay." Judge Price even PROPOSED civil partnership to Williams after a lovers' tiff.

    Williams said: "He got down on one knee and promised he'd leave his wife. I was just to bear with him while he sorted out their finances. I was quite shocked and said, 'Yes, but we'll see if you have the guts to leave her.' I really wanted him to do it. I had strong feelings for him." And it was Judge Price's vow to leave his wife that brought the secret relationship to a head. Williams revealed: "Gerald and Theresa had a big argument and later I was with him in the pub. "After a few pints I said to him, 'It's now or never - do it!' And he didn't. But when we got back to my flat I asked for his phone to phone my mother, then I actually phoned his wife and told her everything.

    "I said, 'It's Chris, you met me at the rugby. Me and Gerald have been in a relationship since September.' And then I handed the phone to Gerald. To say he was shocked would be an understatement. He was mortified. He'd have been quite happy to lead his double life for the rest of his life without anyone knowing." We have tried repeatedly to get Judge Price to account for his behaviour. He denies some of Williams' claims but won't volunteer details about their relationship. He feels our probe invades his privacy and, through his lawyers, insisted there is no public interest in our disclosures. A Judicial Communications Office spokesman said: "Having been approached by the press, Judge Price has voluntarily provided a detailed account of the circumstances to the senior judiciary. The matter has been referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints to consider whether there has been a breach of discipline."


  • SOURCE (pulled)
    lord judge First trial without jury approved
    The decision by Lord Judge has made legal history

    The Court of Appeal has ruled that a criminal trial can take place at Crown Court without a jury for the first time in England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, made legal history by agreeing to allow the trial to be heard by a judge alone. It is the first time the power has been used since it came into force in 2007.

    The case concerns four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004. The judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger. Lord Judge told the court the cost of the measures needed to protect jurors from potential influence, such as the services of police officers, was too high and that such measures may not properly insulate them. For example, they "did not sufficiently address the potential problem of interference with jurors through their families," Lord Judge said.

    'Cash unrecovered'

    In addition, it would be "totally unfair" to impose such "additional burdens" on individual jurors, he continued. The trial of the defendants, who cannot be identified, "will take place without a jury in due course", he added. Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Justice Goldring and Mr Justice McCombe, explained the case, which had been brought to trial three previous times, concerned "very serious criminal activity".

    "Where [trial without jury] arises the judge assimilates all the functions of the jury with his own unchanged judicial responsibilities" said Lord Judge

    It included possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery and conspiracy to rob, he said. "The objective of the robbery was something in the region of £10m in sterling and mixed foreign currency," he told the court. But, he went on, the actual proceeds amounted to £1.75m and remain largely unrecovered.

    Lord Judge described trial by jury as a "hallowed principle" of British justice, but said the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did allow a trial to he heard by a judge alone in certain circumstances. "Where it arises the judge assimilates all the functions of the jury with his own unchanged judicial responsibilities," he said. "This function, although new in the context of trial on indictment, is well known in the ordinary operation of the criminal justice system and is exercised for example by district judges [magistrates' courts] in less serious, summary cases."

    The new trial will be the first Crown Court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone using powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in July 2007. It allows for a trial without a jury when there is evidence of "a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place" and where additional measures to prevent it would not fully succeed. No-jury trials are a more regular feature of justice elsewhere in the UK.

    Diplock courts have been used in Northern Ireland since 1973 to combat jury intimidation by paramilitary groups. And some criminal cases in Scotland are heard by a sheriff in the Sheriff Court or by a bench of one or more lay justices in the District Court.

    Names of judges found guilty of misconduct to stay secret

    • Straw wins four-year battle to keep identities hidden
    • Challenge by Guardian rejected by tribunal

    The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled. The judge heading the tribunal decided that some members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public. The judges' authority in the courtroom would be undermined, and their privacy unjustifiably invaded, if the public were allowed to know how they had been disciplined, according to the tribunal.
    The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants. The three-member tribunal, led by David Marks QC, dismissed a challenge from the Guardian which had argued that the public should know which judges had been disciplined and why. Straw and Igor Judge, the lord chief justice, are in charge of deciding how to punish judges, members of tribunals, magistrates and coroners if they behave badly in the courtroom. They can also be disciplined if their conduct outside the courtroom "tarnishes the reputation of the judiciary".

    It is known that judges have been admonished for being convicted of drink-driving, falling asleep in a rape trial and viewing porn on their official computers. An immigration judge who had an affair with his Brazilian cleaner and sent her text messages calling her "chilli hot stuff" was rebuked for showing "poor judgment" in hiring her. The cleaner was cleared of blackmailing him. In their verdict, Marks and the two members of the tribunal said it was not "at all far-fetched to assume" that the courts would be disrupted if the public were allowed to know about judges' misdemeanours. They cited the example of an unnamed "very senior judge who was reprimanded by the lord chief justice". Marks and his colleagues said that if barristers had known about the behaviour which had led to the reprimand, they would have used the information to try and get an adjournment of hearings or "in some cases an application that the judge in question not hear the particular case.

    "This clearly has adverse implications for the public and for the administration of justice generally," they said. Marks also said judges could also experience "intrusive" and overblown reporting by the media of their misconduct. This could "cause an undermining of authority generally and thus prejudice any further employment prospects of whatever sort in the wake of a reprimand", they added. They were "impressed" by the Ministry of Justice's argument that judges were entitled to a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

    They recognised that disclosure of the data requested by the Guardian would "admittedly ... further the interests of transparency and accountability". However they decided that "enough" information about the "fact and scope" of the reprimands over the past decade had already been made public. The Ministry of Justice had published information outlining the number of times judges have been disciplined, a description of the system for adjudicating complaints, and broad categories of misconduct committed such as "inappropriate behaviour" and "misuse of judicial status" without giving further details of individual wrongdoing. Marks rejected the Guardian's arguments that publication of the misconduct would "enhance public confidence in the administration of justice and that secrecy is more likely to engender resentment, suspicion and contempt than enhance respect".

    The public should know if those who pass judgment on others were being disciplined correctly when they transgressed, the paper said. The Guardian had also argued that openness would also help to ensure that judges were not persecuted unfairly by ministers. Following pressure from the Guardian, the Ministry of Justice has pledged to be more open about judges who have been sacked in future.

    barraza EL PASO, Texas - A newly elected state district judge is in jail on federal charges that he offered to take cash and sex from defendants in his El Paso court. The FBI arrested Manuel J. Barraza on Thursday morning at his house.

    He was indicted Wednesday on four counts, including mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to a federal agent. The 10-page indictment alleges Barraza, who took the bench in January, took bribes and asked for sex from defendants, including an undercover FBI agent, in exchange for his help in felony cases. Court records do not list a lawyer who could comment for Barraza, who will make a court appearance Thursday afternoon.

    marcus enfield The lawyer, the lies and the fast ladies

    Speed-trap judge claimed there was a woman at the wheel. There was only one problem: she had been dead for three years He was a highly respected member of the Australian Jewish community, a human rights lawyer honoured as an “Australian National Treasure.” But when, in 2006, former judge Marcus Einfeld, 69, drove his silver Lexus sedan at 60 kmh through a 50kmh zone, he was on a highway to a prison cell — and by the most bizarre route.

    Rather than pay a $AU77 speeding fine — around £37 — Einfeld claimed that he had lent the car to an old friend, an American academic called Teresa Brennan. But his alibi failed when police discovered that Professor Brennan had been dead for three years. So the story changed. Another woman, businesswoman Angela Liati, then claimed she had been driving.

    But her story of meeting Brennan at a meditation retreat was obviously untrue, and the media delighted in airing previous examples of her as an unreliable witness. She was eventually convicted of perjury. This week Einfeld began a three-year jail sentence, after being sentenced by the New South Wales Supreme Court. Justice Bruce James said that Einfeld’s “deliberate premeditated perjury” was “part of a planned criminal activity”.

    Speaking on Australian television on the eve of sentencing, Einfeld had admitted: “It was an aberration, completely mad. I don’t have any idea how and why I did it now, I just lost my senses at the wrong moment. I don’t think I’m in the slightest bit dishonest. I just made a mistake.” In fact, Einfeld made many such mistakes. When he was confronted with the fact that Teresa Brennan was dead, he invented another woman, giving her the same name and background. He later admitted that this was a lie, but said it was acceptable because he told it to a journalist. However, mobile phone records showed that he was in the area on the day of the speeding offence, at an up-market restaurant having lunch with journalist Vivian Schenker, a woman with whom he had enjoyed a 20-year relationship.

    So he then concocted another story. This time he claimed he had been driving his 94-year-old mother’s Corolla while his girlfriend, Sylvia Eisman, took her to the theatre. But CCTV footage showed that the Corolla had not moved from outside her apartment block all day. Both his lunch date and his mother withdrew their statements.

    The case became even more bizarre when a prostitute called Marie Christos found papers relating to the case in the rubbish bin of Einfeld’s solicitor, Michael Ryan. Ms Christos attended court every day, announcing: “I am the prostitute in the case.” Mr Ryan, who was exposed as a regular client of Ms Christos, eventually resigned from his job and quit the law. Marcus Einfeld was a respected lawyer before he pleaded guilty to lying under oath. He was praised for his work on behalf of Aborigine people.

    Under the scrutiny of the Australian media his CV was shown to be riddled with inaccuracies. He had falsely claimed to be a director of Marks & Spencer, bought two degrees from America and embroidered his entry in the Australian edition of Who’s Who. Einfeld is a former executive member of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, a member of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and patron of the Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants. He worked for the JIA in London during the 1970s and chaired the UK’s National Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

    He was awarded the Order of Australia in 1998 for his promotion of human rights, although he may now be stripped of it. He has already been stripped of his honorific Queen’s Counsel title.

    Einfeld was also involved in the Rule of Law project in the Palestinian territories following the Oslo Accords. The project was designed to train Palestinian judges and lawyers to help establish Palestinian law. Many members of the Jewish community continue to back him, despite his fall from grace. David Knoll, a former president of the New South Wales Board of Deputies, said: “You don’t abandon people who’ve done that much good in their lives. I use the word mensch, because I knew Marcus as a mensch.”

    Courtroom stars of a real-life Aussie soap

    Angela Liati
    Claimed to have been at the wheel of the speeding Lexus. Had already been discredited as a witness during a 1995 court case in which she was awarded AU$125,000 against the estate of a former boyfriend for “admirably” fulfilling her domestic role by putting his shoes on when he was too fat to do it, cutting his toenails, working the stereo and removing crumbs from his butter.

    Vivian Schenker
    Lunched with Einfeld on the day his Lexus was seen speeding. Journalist and broadcaster, romantically involved with the former judge for 20 years, according to the Australian media. They met when he was still married to his second wife, and shared a passion for social justice.

    Sylvia and Kathryn Eisman
    Sylvia Eisman is Einfeld’s long term girlfriend, and de facto third wife. She was taking his 94-year-old mother Rose to the theatre to see Menopause The Musical on the day he was speeding in his Lexus. Her daughter, Kathryn, a Sydney socialite, television reporter and author of How to Tell a Man by his Shoes, was also part of the theatre party. Kathryn was charged with drink-driving in 2007 but escaped conviction.

    Marie Christos
    Self-proclaimed “prostitute in the case” Ms Christos found papers relating to Einfeld in the rubbish bin of her client, Einfeld’s solicitor, Michael Ryan. Ryan had a six-year liaison with Christos, and she found the papers while searching for proof that Ryan was seeing another woman. Ms Christos wore a different designer dress to every day of the Einfeld trial.

    Mark Ciavarella Michael Conahan Hundreds of teenagers who were subjected to months in custody by a corrupt judge have had their convictions quashed by Pennsylvania's highest court in a judicial scandal dubbed "kids for cash". The state's supreme court ruled that the judge, Mark Ciavarella, had violated the constitutional rights of the teenagers who came before his court, by failing to ensure they were properly legally represented.

    Last month Ciavarella and another senior juvenile judge, Michael Conahan, pleaded guilty to having taken $2.6m (£1.78m) from the co-owner and builder of a private detention centre. The judges were accused of setting up a system to ensure a steady flow of children committed to custody in the care of the private firm in return for kickbacks. Ciavarella handed down custodial sentences for children as young as 14 for offences such as as stealing a $4 jar of nutmeg or creating a satirical MySpace page of their headteacher. The supreme court was acting on the strength of an official report by an independent judge, Arthur Grim, who found hundreds of children had been sentenced without the benefit of any legal advice. Under Pennsylvania law, a young person under 17 may not waive his or her right to a lawyer unless the decision is made "knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily". In an interview with the Guardian last month Ciavarella insisted that his only concern had been to try "to help these kids straighten out their lives".

    Of all the groups of powerful people in this country, least of all is known about those who administer justice on our behalf.

    Judges escape the kind of scrutiny to which politicians, the Royal Family, the Armed Forces, doctors, the clergy and even journalists are regularly subjected. Perhaps only the police rival judges in the freedom from public accountability which they enjoy. It is an almost unbelievable fact that when judges do get into trouble, their misdemeanours are very likely to be swept under the carpet.

    Judge Lincoln Crawford, above, quit his post today after losing a High Court battle to hush up his convictions for harassment More than 170 members of the judiciary have been disciplined for misconduct in the past ten years. That's an astonishingly high number. I doubt so many clergymen or Army officers have been found to have misbehaved over the same period. And yet, with very few exceptions, we hardly know the names of these errant judges. The reason is that ministers and the judiciary have for many years fought to protect the identities of miscreants. This practice - to my mind, a wholly unjustifiable one - is being challenged by The Guardian newspaper in an information tribunal today under the Freedom of Information Act. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and a dependable defender of the status quo in every sphere, is opposing the application. He believes that judges' misbehaviour should remain a private matter. His argument is that the names of judges who have been disciplined must be concealed as publicity could ' undermine the judge's authority and command' in the courtroom. Can you imagine a more fatuous line of defence? A person on trial surely has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the person who will pass judgment on him is upright and law-abiding.

    If I am charged with drink-driving, I will have a particular interest in knowing whether the person sentencing me has been guilty of the same offence. He might be lenient as a result of his experience or he might be draconian. In either event, what had happened to him could be relevant to what is done to me. Mr Straw's argument is entirely the wrong way round. If judges are to be respected - if, in his words, they are to exercise 'authority and command' in the courtroom - there must be transparency. Any suspicion that the judiciary is hoarding its own dirty washing in secret, while passing public judgment on ours, is bound to lead to public scepticism or mistrust, which cannot be in the interests of justice. Of course, no one is suggesting that there are convicted murderers sitting on the bench, or that beneath those robes and wigs intended to inspire awe there lurk racketeers or members of the cosa nostra. So far as I am aware, no British judge has been convicted of a major crime in living memory. If one ever were to be, he could not be kept off the front pages even by the sinuous Mr Straw. We are talking about minor offences or failures of duty, of which only a handful ever seep out. In 2001, Judge Gabriel Hutton was disciplined for falling asleep during a rape trial. In 1999, Judge Victor Hall was 'severely reprimanded' after he was convicted of drink-driving. An inebriated district court judge called Esther Cunningham was recently escorted from a court in Grantham after she had forcibly kissed a solicitor.

    Such an embarrassingly public spectacle could hardly be hushed up by the authorities, notwithstanding their mania for secrecy. But the vast majority of the 170 disciplinary cases I have mentioned remain unknown thanks to Mr Straw and the judiciary's vow of silence in respect of its own activities. We don't know what these judges have done and so we can't form a view as to whether they are fit to administer justice. The Justice Department doesn't want us to form a view. We are expected to like it and lump it. If the information tribunal rules against The Guardian, the public will be left with the impression that the judiciary enjoys a unique freedom to order its own affairs as it chooses. It does, of course - unless we think of the police.

    Last week, as a result of a Liberal Democrat application under the Freedom of Information Act, it emerged that there are 1,063 police officers in 41 British police forces who have criminal convictions, 77 of them for violent offences. The police, like the judiciary, claim they are an exception. They expect to live by different rules to the rest of us. Why do we put up with such behaviour so far as our judges concerned? One important reason is that the judiciary rightly enjoys protection from political interference under our largely unwritten constitution. No one wants the administration of justice to be influenced by the executive. But this freedom from political meddling is sometimes abused and extended by the judiciary, so that in some respects it behaves like a private club with its own interests closest to its heart. Its shadowy system of appointments produces lots of second-rate judges, at any rate at the lower levels of the judiciary, which are those most involved in the administering of criminal justice.

    Can it be right that undistinguished barristers and solicitors should be made circuit and district judges when there are brighter minds outside the legal profession who could probably do the job much better - and possibly more cheaply? Incidentally, it is one of the canards of the legal profession that lawyers invariably accept self-sacrificing pay cuts to become judges. Some do, but others do not command stratospheric salaries as lawyers, and the guaranteed income of a judge, not in any case the most taxing of jobs in view of the short-ish hours and long holidays, is hardly stingy. A High Court judge collects £166,000 a year. Amusingly - and tellingly - when pay cuts were imposed on the public sector in 1931 during the Depression, the judiciary alone among the professions argued for an exemption. Nor do many judges involved in the criminal law reflect public concern about the scourge of serious crime, presumably because they are insulated from it and loftily unaware of the effects that it has on ordinary people. Every week a judge somewhere passes what seems an absurdly light sentence, be it for a rape, other assault or even killing someone.

    Even the Court of Appeal - not obviously the toughest court in the world - ruled that in 2007, 62 judges in England and Wales let off criminals, including terrorists, killers and rapists, with light sentences. I don't doubt there are many fine, decent and intelligent judges. There are also too many low-grade ones. And the fact remains that the judiciary is one of the most, if not the most, unaccountable and secretive of this country's great public institutions. How to open it up without subjecting it to party political control is a pressing challenge. I am not suggesting that we go as far as America where in some states judges are forced to stand for election. But a good start would be to reveal the disciplinary record of our judges. Let's hope the Freedom of Information Act - one of the few real achievements of this Government, which it appears half-inclined to undo - again serves to promote more open government. It is worrying enough that so many judges should have apparently blotted their copybooks in so short a period. It will be much more worrying, and not at all in the long-term interests of the judiciary, if they succeed in keeping their misdemeanours under lock and key.

    lothian Only one of many MASONIC judges who have been destroying thousands of lives across Scotland. All of them protecting each other from their fraud and corruption.

    For anyone unfamiliar with Lothian he was the judge who locked up IMO member George Farquhar in a mental hospital for exposing the very things this article reports.

    George was being forced by 8 nurses onto the ground before being injected with a chemical cosh to destroy his mind. We called him daily and heard his whole personna slip away before our actions to the Scottish Parliament got him released. His speech the day he was released for the Scottish Parliament was maybe the single most important speech that has EVER been made there attached below.

    His demise should give all Georges supporters a lovely warm glow . Lothian like many other Scottish judges is an evil bastard who deserves to be hung drawn and quartered for the lives he has destroyed.

    One down another few hundred to go. RIGHT!!!!!!!!

    George's speech to the Scottish Parliament can be read at the link at the end of this article

    SLEAZY sheriff Andrew Lothian is a wife-beating drunk who’s obsessed with prostitutes, his ex-wife reveals. The shamed 66-year-old was forced to quit the bench after claims he paid for spanking and whipping sessions with an Edinburgh hooker. But today the News of the World can expose the shocking secrets of his sordid private life. According to long-suffering ex-wife Harriet Lothian, the twisted beak:

    TRIED to make her have sex with strangers while he watched

    ADMITTED using prostitutes during their marriage

    DOWNED at least a bottle of spirits every day, and

    BATTERED her while their unsuspecting kids slept upstairs.

    Speaking at length for the first time since her ex-husband’s sauna shame, disgusted Harriet, 57, below, said: “I’m surprised it took so long for his activities to be exposed. “I tried repeatedly to alert the police and the Crown to his unsuitability for office because of his behaviour, but to no avail. “I suffered greatly at his hands, both during our marriage and for many years after I divorced him.”

    We told last November how Lothian quit his £125,000-a-year job after Crown Office bosses confronted him about allegations over his private life. But, according to Harriet his obsession with sordid sex had been going on for years. Lothian’s wife of 19 years said: “Sexually, there were problems from an early stage in the marriage.

    “I found it so unsettling that I sought advice from my father, who was a doctor, and who I could talk to about anything. “Andrew was into kinky but fairly inadequate sex. He also had fantasies about introducing third parties, men or women, into the bedroom.

    “I had no interest, but he kept asking me to do it to please him. “I refused because I found the idea repulsive. He said he could pay people to make his fantasies come true.”

    Harriet suspected her hubby was using hookers during their marriage. And she told how her elderly father was forced to confront Lothian about the sleazy claims. Harriet said: “He confessed without any shame. He told me he had lost his virginity at 16 to a prostitute, and that he’d always been turned on by them. “I was devastated. I told him I’d never have unprotected sex with him again but he was totally unrepentant.

    “Once his obsession was out in the open, he became more demanding. If he was out at a dinner, he would bring men home and want me to have sex with them while he watched. “I would have to throw them out, which was embarrassing. I found the idea repugnant. Apart from anything else, I had children in the house. “My father was 68, but was very close to me and he had no hesitation in speaking to Andrew and telling him to shape up.”

    The couple had married on December 28, 1983, after a whirlwind romance. Lothian already had a son, also Andrew, from the first of two previous marriages, and Harriet had a young son, James, from a previous relationship. Two years after their wedding, Harriet gave birth to their son Robert, but already the foundations of the marriage were beginning to crumble. She says: “By the time Robert came along, I had serious concerns about his father’s alcoholism and how terribly ill it was making him. He was drinking at least a bottle of spirits a day, and that was just what I was witnessing. He was in a mess.

    “I went home with Robert on New Year’s Day 1986 and Andrew was in such a terrible state that he became abusive. I threw a milk bottle at him and hit him on the side of the head. “The next day, I insisted he saw a doctor, and he agreed because his mother was in the house. Harriet tried to alert senior legal officals to her husband’s alcohol abuse but was snubbed at every turn.

    Things spiralled further out of control and by Christmas 1996 Harriet demanded Lothian move out. She said: “His language became more abusive. There were implied threats of violence and the odd punch to the side of the head where no visible marks were left, but I was still shocked by what happened then.” Harriet told how their sons, James, now 27, and Robert, now 23, were in their bedrooms when a huge row erupted on Christmas Eve that year. She claims Lothian slapped her hard in the face, before punching her full on the nose. As their shocked mother took refuge in the bathroom, where she tried to stem the flow of blood, both sons plucked up the courage to leave their rooms and go to her aid.

    With her face badly marked and her eyes beginning to blacken, the family went through the motions the next day, exchanging presents and eating dinner — but the mood was understandably bleak. Harriet said: “Until that point, I’d been trying to hold things together for my sons, but I couldn’t go on with the charade. No child should have to see their mother pouring with blood from a blow their father has struck. It was a total nightmare.” Robert said: “I remember clearly what happened that night and it sickens me the way he behaved. It is more than ten years since I have spoken to him. “When I was 12 I wrote him a letter telling him I wanted nothing to do with him.”

    Following the attack Harriet demanded that Lothian move out of the family home in Lauder, Berwickshire. She wept: “I feared for the safety of our sons. I had no choice.” But in summer 2001 Lothian — then living in Edinburgh — launched a court bid to SELL the house. She said: “The move was especially hurtful as Robert was about to start his Higher courses.

    “It was also difficult to understand as Andrew had inherited a six-figure sum the previous year when his mother died.” Lothian’s partner at that time, Eleanor Burns, daughter of Sir John and Lady Eleanor Burns, had also inherited a substantial sum on the death of her mother, just a week before Catriona Lothian’s death. By 2002, when they finally divorced, Harriet claims that Lothian enjoyed a six-figure salary whilst Harriet took care of their children and could only work part-time as a rape crisis counsellor. In the end she had to pay Lothian £28,000 to buy him out of the family home and finish the marriage.

    Lothian and his brother Murdoch were subject to an Inland Revenue investigation in 2000 after claiming the contents of their late mother’s Stirling home were worth a mere £5,000. This included antique furniture, jewellery, silver, paintings and pottery. It’s understood the Inland Revenue later valued the list at £300,000. But Harriet still wishes justice had been done for the assault she endured in 1996. She said: “Successive governments on both sides of the border have claimed to wage war on domestic violence.

    “There was an opportunity for the Scottish establishment to show there was substance behind the platitudes by taking action against a senior lawyer. But typically, they covered his back.” Now self-employed in horticulture, Harriet added: “I have to work extremely hard to make a living. Andrew’s disgrace has not made life any easier, but I feel vindicated.”

    Lothian served on the Glasgow bench from 1979 to 1992 before moving to Edinburgh. He’s expected to keep his £7,000-a-month pension. He was unavailable to comment on the allegations.

  • George Farquhars speech at the Scottish Parliament

    I'm speechless - almost

    Two judges in Pennsylvania US took over $2.6 million in bribes from a privately owned prison company to put THOUSANDS of kids in jail for extended sentences for NOTHING! This took place in broad daylight and scores of people in the justice system in Pennsylvania watched, stood by and did nothing.

    The judges are now headed to jail, but the owners of the company who paid the bribes apparently have been to date free of charges. 25% of all the people in jail in the entire world are in jail in the US.

    That's today.

    Meanwhile, FEMA camps sit empty and waiting all over the country. The day someone figures out a profitable way to fill them, they will be filled.

  • Corrections Corporation of America. Billion dollar racket jailing US citizens
    The two judges jailed for taking bribes for locking kids inside private prisons in the USA operate under the Pennsylvania juvenile Justice system. Their emblem attached shows clearly illuminati/masonic symbolism .

    Hopefully this case will highlight the utter failure of judges across the world who have been getting away with murder in the corruption and fraud they now operate under . The International masonic judicial mafia need brought down before even more victims and their families have to go through the horrors that many on this group have experienced themselves.

  • Pennsylvania juvenile Justice
    charles palmer Charles Palmer, an educated and well-respected sheriff, and Sarah Clarke, a former drug user lured into prostitution, were unlikely companions, to say the least. Yet circumstances brought them together to form a friendship which ended in tragedy when he died in her arms after suffering a heart attack in the back of his car.
    Now, after police have confirmed the pair were together at the time of his death, Sarah, 27, speaks exclusively of their special bond and of her desperate bid to save his life.
    lothian This evil bastard of a judge sent one of the International Mens Organisation members to a mental hospital for taking a picture of a cop who lied in a previous trial. Despite repeated forced injections of anti-psychotic drugs this SPECULATIVE MEMBER and HIGH LEVEL masonic judicial crook imposed on George, we eventually raised an action at the Scottish Parliament to expose what they were doing to him and he was released.

    He should have been JAILED but instead retires on £7,000 per month and shows why the independence the judicial mobsters in Scotland have GIVEN themselves , lets them get away with murder. He was protected for years by masonic judges,masonic cops and a masonic controlled mass media.

    Sheriff accused of taking part in spanking and whipping session at sauna quits

    A SHERIFF has sensationally quit after being accused of paying for spanking and whipping sessions with hookers.
    Andrew Lothian stood down after admitting he visited a sleazy sauna. His shock exit came after a prostitute told the Sunday Mail she was regularly paid £50 to whip him at Carol's in Edinburgh. She claimed Lothian visited as recently as Wednesday, when he paid £180 for a threesome with her and another girl. Claims about the 66-year-old sheriff first emerged as police investigated the alleged blackmail of a Halifax Bank of Scotland worker.

    Two brothers charged with the crimes told officers they had video evidence of the sheriff with the hooker - who has been charged with the same blackmail plot. It is unclear when Lothian, who earned £125,000 a year, was first challenged about his vice sessions at the sauna in Easter Road, Leith. But on Friday he was confronted by bosses at a meeting and agreed to quit immediately.

    The Crown Office said: "Following allegations that were made on Friday about his private life Sheriff Andrew Lothian made the decision to retire with immediate effect." The official website of Carol's Sauna describes it as "Edinburgh's best kept secret" and boasts it is run by a "charming local couple". It adds: "The ladies here at Carol's are a delightful selection and are predominantly Scottish.

    "Furthermore, each is keen to show their customers how much they appreciate their custom and will always give cl ients a fantastic welcome!" Pictures show a series of dingy bedrooms with mirrored walls. Owner Tom Punton last night said: "I don't want to comment."

    The hooker at the centre of the storm, a 30-year-old single mum from nearby Musselburgh, said: "The sheriff liked being whipped more than anything. "He paid £20 to get into Carol's and he would pay me £50 . "I first met him two years ago after I started working there. "The other girls all knew him and they told me he was a sheriff.

    "It became a bit of a joke that we would need to get the whip out every time we saw him coming in. "He sometimes picked me, but he also chose other girls working on the same shift in the sauna. "I used to ask him if he was on his lunch hour but he was cagey about what he did for a living.

    "He didn't realise it was well known among all the girls there. "One of them had seen him wearing his wig in court but we are told to be discreet and not to ask punters questions they don't want to answer. "He was actually in on Wednesday. "He paid £180 for me and another girl.

    "He wanted us to put on a show for him then he joined in. "I know the police were made aware of what he's been up to when they were investigating me and two other men for something else. "I know the men told the police they had a video of him with other prostitutes but I have never been spoken to by police about the sheriff." Sauna customers are rarely prosecuted but owners can be convicted of living off immoral earnings. If he had remained on the bench, Lothian could have faced claims he risked a conflict of interest and left himself open to blackmail.

    A spokesman for Lothian and Borders police refused to comment. Sheriffs usually carry on until they are 70, which means Lothian is leaving his job four years early. Two days after his visit to Carol's he spent his last day in Edinburgh Sheriff Court dealing with drink-driving, assault and fraud cases. He took over from Sheriff Alastair Noble in court five at around 10.30am and handled several cases.

    One involved a elderly man who pleaded guilty to obtaining £8000 in benefits to which he was not entitled. Others included a young woman who admitted punching a girl at a party and a man who admitted being drunk and driving his girlfriend's car without having a licence or insurance. Lothian was accused in the mid-90s of beating his estranged first wife Harriet in the family home. In 1999 Harriet went public after she became angry at the Crown Office's refusal to prosecute.

    In 2001 it emerged that Lothian used one of his own courts to try to have Harriet evicted from her home in the Borders. She claimed it was unfair his £100,000 civil action seeking the sale of the house was heard by a colleague of Lothian at Selkirk Sheriff Court, where he sometimes presided. Lothian was also once investigated by the Inland Revenue.

    It was claimed he failed to declare valuable paintings and antiques in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. The two brothers in the alleged blackmail plot are on remand awaiting trial after making a first appearance at Haddington Sheriff Court.

  • Senior judge retires on £7,000 a month after sauna visit revealed
  • Sheriff resigns over claims he visited sauna
    The European Court of Human Rights does NOT even operate under its own legislation. Impartial tribunals should be juries not judges from the countries like the UK that are heavily abusing the ordinary citizen in civil courts while bending over backwards to support the human rights of all the hooks and crooks of the day.

    Human Rights Act is a law for ne'er-do-wells

    Promises hastily made in opposition are often repented at leisure in government. Today, exactly 10 years after the passage of the Human Rights Act through Parliament, ministers have not exactly put out the bunting in celebration, though its chief architect Jack Straw, now Lord Chancellor, recently delivered an anniversary encomium. The Act was, he said, a "defining piece of legislation, a landmark which set the liberties we have long enjoyed in the United Kingdom on to a constitutional footing". He added: "I believe that the 1998 Act will be seen as one of the great legal, constitutional and social reforms of this government." Mr Straw said that many of the concerns initially voiced about the HRA had proved unfounded. It had not clogged up the courts with vexatious litigation, nor had it "thrown common sense out of the window".

    Really? The wheels of justice may not have ground to a halt but the Act has proved to be a nice little earner for members of the legal profession, cited in more than 4,000 cases since it came into force and with about 1,200 human rights lawyers now practising in Britain. And extra court expenditure is estimated at £100?million. This would, perhaps, be a small price to pay if it were really reinforcing "human rights". But the cases that inspired Labour to promise to introduce the Act tended to involve defeats for the British government in the Strasbourg court over issues such as deportation of suspected terrorists and the release of life prisoners. The basic liberties whose denial led to the promulgation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1948 - such as the right not be rounded up because of your religion, and murdered - were already well established in this country. Indeed, we went to war to defend them.

    Those who drew up the convention were concerned about fundamental freedoms; yet the circumstances in which it has been applied in the UK have often been a travesty of that original purpose, and certainly involved the defenestration of Mr Straw's idea of common sense. Take a case with which he was intimately involved. In February 2000, when he was Home Secretary, a plane was hijacked in Afghanistan and flown to Stansted Airport at the point of several guns. After an armed siege, nine hijackers and many of their relatives on board were arrested. In the Commons, Mr Straw said: "As a matter of public policy, I believe that the clearest and most unequivocal signals must be sent out so as to discourage hijacking, whatever its motive... I am determined that nobody should consider that there can be any benefit to be obtained by hijacking.

    "Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable." The key words in that sentence were "subject to compliance with all legal requirements" because the ECHR, as incorporated into the Human Rights Act, turned Mr Straw's fine words into so much hot air. The hijackers are still in the country and have been given leave to stay indefinitely, even though British troops helped topple the Taliban from whom they said they were fleeing.

    The concern of many critics was that the HRA would mark a shift in power from Parliament to the judiciary, which has happened; and that common sense would be suppressed for fear of infringing rights. That has happened, too. When the Bill was going through Parliament, Lord McCluskey, the Scottish judge and vice-chairman of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association, said: "By incorporating into our domestic law vague, imprecise and high-sounding statements of legal rights, we hand what is truly legislative power away from a democratic and accountable Parliament to an appointed, unelected and unaccountable judiciary." This led to bizarre decisions such as the failure to eject foreign nationals deemed a threat to our security; but it also engendered a set of attitudes in the public sector, especially in the criminal justice system, that have erred too much on the side of caution for fear of litigation.

    The most egregious example was exposed by the report into the rape and murder of Naomi Bryant in Winchester in 2005. It found that her killer, Anthony Rice, who had previously been imprisoned for life for rape, had been freed on licence after the Parole Board allowed its public protection obligations to be undermined by human rights considerations. Another pernicious impact has been the assumption by any ne'er-do-well that he can invoke human rights for every eventuality. The concept of rights, once a noble cause, has been devalued by its association with a culture of grievance and egocentricity.

    This entrenchment of rights was meant to be balanced by an acceptance of responsibility. Can anyone say that this has been properly struck? The most grotesque development in recent years has been the reduction in the liberties - especially the privacy - of the law-abiding citizen, whom the state feels quite justified in bugging, harassing, and snooping upon, while at the same time those who have broken the law, or who are suspected of doing the nation great harm, are protected by the full majesty of the Human Rights Act. Ten years on, was that really what Mr Straw and his colleagues had in mind?

  • Top judge backs secret Masons' membership
  • UK Judges asked to reveal Masonic links
  • Call to free up masons
  • New judges must declare masonic membership
    lodge at sea Total control of the world has been centred on the use of the judiciary ,especially in the UK and USA and all other regions that emulate English civil law.The media have deliberately avoided reporting on civil courts primarily as it is there that most of the worlds wealth, earned by the hard work of NON masonic men, is being stolen. Judicial systems that have a complete lack of impartial tribunals and use JUDICIAL MOBSTERS as the supposed deciders of civil actions ensure the masons and their judicial pawns control most of the worlds wealth.

    When men, not part of their creepy network, go out into the world and earn their keep they will find many barriers to employment that ensures the CREAM of occupations, the high flying executive positions (another name for dim witted masons who seldom have any qualifications) are allocated to masons alone. Any man who tries to compete with their OWN business faces a banking system primarily set up to ONLY help masonic run companies and who get the vast bulk of loans and moneys to expand their business's. Many men, find to their cost, that it is virtually impossible to compete when the masonic competition has the bulk of the business money the masonic run banks loan out.

    If a NON mason man gets a decent job he will be blocked from higher positions and senior management posts when most multi national companies are run by masons who only promote their dim witted duped juniors . After a period of earning and accumulation of wealth and property the next phase of the masonic tyranny kicks in when a non mason man divorces.

    This is when you see the MASONIC money train at its most extreme , a tyrannical court process that seizes ALL your worldly assets and children under the guise of family law. A family law written to line the masonic coffers using judges and lawyers who are all part of the satanic cult dominating the worlds political, financial and legal systems . The masonic coffers are being lined by the sweat of NON mason men who at every turn face legal and political chicanery that enslaves good men who are undermined by a devious system of control with a mass media that continually paints men as deserving of the fraud and corruption in these courts that are right at the heart of the injustice men face who have not signed their souls away to devil.

    Despite repeated and continuous wake up calls to the men across the globe who need to realise how fragile the world they are building for themselves and their family is . There is still an apathy and failure to understand that doing NOTHING will lead to an ever expanding network that , with their new high tech surveillance equipment, will increase their power and domination of good men across the globe. Only a uniting of NON mason men and women who have been duped into backing the campaign of hate against men in family civil courts will there be sufficient growing resistance across the globe to block the evil expansion of their network.

    They will NOT stop until all human beings are tagged ,processed and stripped of everything that they own. This has been going on for years in closed secretive courts with NO publicity and has effectively weakened the resistance against masons who are surviving these courts when their masonic lodge buddies are ensuring they do not suffer the same financial losses that NON mason men face when they are dragged through the litigation vortex at the heart of the masons New World Order plans.
    Doing Business in the Big Bribery Nation
    by Dr Les Sachs

    There is a country where international business executives and companies face ever-heightening risks and dangers of dealing with the world's largest group of bribed judges and crooked lawyers. International companies and individuals are at risk in this large nation where the "rules" involve paying bribes via certain pathways, but where it is easier to go to prison than anywhere else in the world. You might ask: What is this large corrupt nation? Where is this cesspool of corrupt lawyers and judges, who make such a mockery of the rule of law? In what nation must we be so wary when doing business?

    Here's a hint: It is a nation that also has the world's most powerful propaganda industry, propaganda with all the glamour of Hollywood movies. In fact, this corrupt nation actually DOES include Hollywood. It is a well-known fact to its internal powers, though not to the rest of the world, that the United States of America has the worst bribery culture of any developed nation, a bribery culture that centres very specifically in US judges and lawyers.

    Your first reaction is perhaps shock or disbelief, thinking that I am a conspiracy theorist or just making this up. You may react like this because, like most of the world, you have been deceived by US movies and television shows, which are pervaded with propaganda images of lawyers and court cases. In these Hollywood films, there are endless "brave lawyers" who will "fight for your rights" and "fight for the little guy". In these films, the judges are patient and noble and smile like wise old uncles, as they deliver careful verdicts that let the innocent go free, and justice be done. However, in the grim reality of the US, businesses, and especially foreign businesses, face financial destruction, and individuals face jail and death, if they believe too much in these movies about the US legal system. Let me set the facts out for you very quickly.

    The World's Biggest Gulag

    The US now has about 2.2 million prisoners, about 25 per cent of all the prisoners in the entire world. In Belgium, where I now live as a political refugee, about 1 out of every 1000 people is in prison. In the US, it is about 1 out of every 140 people in jail - a dramatically higher percentage than anywhere else in the world. Even in absolute numbers, many more people are in US prisons than in the prisons of China, even though China has 1.3 billion people, versus 300 million for the US. If you don't count children and the elderly, you realize that about 1 out of 80 US adults is currently behind bars, in jail or prison. If you count adults who have been criminally convicted and include those still on parole or probation as well as in prison, you are down to about 1 out of 30. These are, simply, terrifying figures. Yet the US has huge amounts of crime - so they obviously didn't arrest all the criminals.

    This is because, in fact, many of those people in US jails are innocent. Even the close "allies" of the US, like European governments, can not get their own citizens out of US prisons despite massive proof of the victims' innocence. Many of these 2.2 million US prisoners are essentially slave labour for US corporations, working for wages below those paid in very poor countries in Africa or Asia. And these victims in the US prisons, all had "lawyers" to help shove them into jail. But such lawyers are NOT defenders of the poor. Many of them are court-appointed arm-twisters who tell their poor victims to "take a plea bargain" for a few years in jail, or else face a longer term if they risk a trial. These government-paid "lawyers" in the US get put out of work, and become jobless or worse, if they don't play along to help jail innocent victims. Foreigners are treated very badly by US police and court procedures. The US has been repeatedly convicted of violating treaties, and of never even notifying foreign governments that their citizens have been arrested. As many Mexicans have found out, the US even sentences foreign people to death, while not allowing the victims any chance to have their own government help them.

    Bribery and the Praetorian Guard

    Now, as regards business, foreign companies, and the US bribery culture: The basic model of the US courts - well understood by large US corporations, but much less understood by foreign companies - is that the US judges, federal and local, all run their cases and courtrooms in a generally pro-business, pro-corporation fashion, PROVIDED that the businesses who find themselves in court, pay the appropriate financial tributes and bribes to the US governmental powers, and that their governments are politically supportive of the US. Thus, there is great danger in the US, for companies that are associated with ownership in Venezuela, China, or any one of a hundred other countries that are potentially critical of the US and its policies. Even if the near neighbours of the US, Canada or Mexico, started rocking the US boat too severely, their companies would quickly find themselves punished via politically-motivated legal proceedings.

    This website has been established by a number of concerned Australian people who have for some time been aware and disgusted about the corrupt and deceitful behaviour of the British Parliament, a succession of British monarchs (including Elizabeth II), other members of the British royal family, British and Australian politicians and the Australian, British and European Courts.

    Even though the information contained within this website deals mainly with Australian political and legal issues, those people also living in New Zealand and Canada are also directly affected to the same degree. You will soon discover as you do your own investigations, that the elected Government and the entire Judicial System of Australia are totally unlawful, fraudulent and invalid! This has enormous ramifications when considering International Treaties entered into by the these Governments, any Australian political appointments, the banking laws, the whole Court System, just to name a few, have NO legitimacy and are totally null and void. Are you an Australian citizen who has a pending legal action through the Court System, where your bank is about to foreclose on your home, or do you have a legal matter with the Tax Department or any other Government Department (such as the Police for traffic or parking violations), or the Local Councils (for council rates), or Debt Collection Agencies, or anyone else ready to persecute or prosecute you?

    If so, then you really need to study this website now and learn the truth, as you may have a justified case for 'Human Rights Abuse' and you might even be in a position for a substantial compensation claim against them for 'economic deprivation'!!! However, if you are an Australian, New Zealander or Canadian citizen who is not being persecuted by your government at present, but who is concerned for your future and that of your Country, this website may then open your eyes to the political and judicial abuse of power and the associated corruption, manipulation and deceptive behaviour of these people!


    For anyone unfamiliar with American justice this video exposes the complete lack of justice created by a self appointed judicial mob masquerading as some form of impartial tribunal. American justice in US courts is non existent as lawyers and judges create an illusion of some form of legal system that only THEY profit from. Everyone else is a victim who is dragged through the charade. Britain follows close behind in the shambolic take over of our courts by a bunch of madmen who think they can get away with their facade indefinitely.

    Corruption in a justice system distorts the proper role of the judge, which is to protect the civil liberties and rights of the citizen, and to ensure a fair trial by a competent and impartial court. It enables public officials and special interest groups engaged in corrupt practice to function with the confidence that their illicit acts will go unpunished, if exposed. In broad terms, corruption is the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. In the context of judicial corruption, it relates to acts or omissions that constitute the use of public authority for the private benefit of court personnel, and results in the improper and unfair delivery of judicial decisions. Such acts and omissions include bribery, extortion, intimidation, influence peddling and the abuse of court procedures for personal gain.

    In corrupt judiciaries, citizens are not afforded their democratic right of equal access to the courts, nor are they treated equally by the courts. The merits of the case and applicable law are not paramount in corrupt judiciaries, but rather the status of the parties and the benefit judges and court personnel derive from their decisions. A citizen’s economic level, political status and social background play a decisive role in the judicial decision-making process. In corrupt judiciaries, rich and well-connected citizens triumph over ordinary citizens, and governmental entities and business enterprises prevail over citizens.

    While it would be foolhardy to assert that corruption is non-existent in certain judicial systems, it is fair to say that in some countries corruption is minimal, sporadic and the result of individual, unethical behaviour. In such countries, the system in place supports the professionalism of the judiciary and protects the judge from untoward influence. Procedures make the justice system transparent and hold police, prosecutors and judges accountable. In many other countries, judicial corruption is a systemic problem and addressing ethics alone is not sufficient to tackle the problem. The judicial system may be structured to foster corruption. The external pressures on a judge to act unethically are greater, and the risks of being caught and punished are lower.

    When JUDGES not JURIES decide on such serious issues you have TYRANNY. An example of judicial activism from the pervs that have taken over America's legal system for their own perverted ends.

    The New World Order judiciary and politicians are destroying heterosexual families and their assets while making major changes to laws that allow pervs to marry and access vulnerable children through adoption. See the following for proof of similar problems created in the UK by this change.
  • Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic
    yvonne godwin 'You're no criminal': Judge frees jealous wife who laced her cheating husband's cake with rat poison

    A former hospital chef who laced her cheating husband's cake with rat poison in a bid to "stop him leaving the house to see his mistress" was spared jail today. A judge told Yvonne Godwin, 56, that she was not a "criminal in any shape or form" after hearing she was "driven over the edge" by 30 years of abuse at the hands of her husband Robert. She finally reached breaking point when she learned he was having an affair with her best friend's sister and baked two cakes laced with blue rat poison Yvonne Godwin, who worked in a hospital kitchen, was spared jail after baking a cake laced with poison for her cheating husband, Robert But the grey-haired grandmother confessed to the police the next day and admitted she had tried to poison her former husband, and had also eaten some of the cake herself.

    The once-married couple, who have been together for more than 30 years, had divorced 17 years ago but reconciled shortly after. Godwin, of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was recovering from cancer when she discovered her partner's infidelity and was not "seeing things very straight at all", the court heard. Yvonne Godwin (circled) leaves Gloucester Crown Court after she was spared jail for administering poison

    She pleaded guilty to trying to poison Mr Godwin, 63, a retired builder, but the court heard she had only used a teaspoon of rat poison in his fruitcake.

    UK judges to this day are still getting away with tyranny and murder under a different guise.They use psychological torture and family/civil courts to destroy their victims financially and mentally. This group aims to end the reign of tyranny metted out by bastard British masonic judges who are doing immeasurable harm to the fabric of society.
    The exact opposite of how their backers in the British mass media portray them. They are all hand picked crown lackeys that continue to demand independence from scrutiny of their EVIL decisions.

    Establishment puppet 'Lord' Justice Scott-Baker has dedicated his life to the Royal Establishment and no one should be surprised by his blatant bias SCOTT-BAKER PROVES THAT THE INQUEST DID NOT NEED A JURY AFTER ALL BECAUSE HE IS BOTH JUDGE AND JURY!

    The coroner at the inquest into the death of Princess Diana has prevented the jury from even considering a murder verdict and today Lord Justice Scott-Baker's beloved Royal Establishment is safe from collapse for the time being.... In a transparent move which surprised no one with a functioning brain cell he ruled out any possibility that the Inquest jury could arrive at a murder verdict and in so doing bring down the entire Monarchy.

    The stakes were simply too high and a murder verdict would have destroyed the House of Windsor leaving Britain to become a fully-fledged democratic Republic. Had there have been a murder verdict, the public uproar would have forced the House of Windsor into collapse and possible evacuation to safer climes but this is only a temporary reprieve.... Several weeks ago I was telephoned by the BBC's News and Current Affairs assistant producer Kathrine Bancroft with a view to commenting on the BBC's latest anti-Conspiracy Files 'documentary'. We both agreed during our final conversation that a murder verdict at the Diana Inquest would be "the end of the Monarchy" and this is what was at stake from the very outset.

    'Lord' Justice Scott-Baker, a lifelong Establishmentarian and Royal lackey, knew only too well what would happen if the real jury at the Inquest delivered a murder verdict and the stakes were simply too high for him to allow any such verdict to be delivered. Instead, he acted as I predicted he would in September 2008 when he banned me from attending the Inquest. And from the opening day of the Inquest Scott-Baker demonstrated his prejudice against any possibility that Diana and Dodi were murdered. He even had the audacity to state that he did not believe that Diana and Dodi were in a real relationship and the famous engagement ring was not an engagement ring at all. By so doing he showed the world that he was dead set against any notion or evidence to prove Diana was murdered.

    But in an equally transparent act he ruled that the widely discredited Paget Report be removed from the Inquest's website and that the jury should not be allowed to consider it. Attentive readers will remember that the Paget 'investigation' determined that Diana and Dodi were killed in a tragic accident caused by a drunk, speeding Henri Paul. Scott-Baker realised that 80 per cent of the British public believed the Paget report was a whitewash designed to deliver an accident record into the history books. And in evidence submitted to the Inquest it was proved that Diana and Dodi's relationship was real and genuine and the engagement ring was just that. But no apology has been forthcoming from Scott-Baker because in common with all judges and lawyers (overpaid professional liars and parasites on the public purse) he could not be seen to be wrong. This proves again the maxim: "No lawyer will ever go to heaven while there is room for one more in Hell."

    And so the jury, who it is clear were not needed at all because Scott-Baker has taken over the function of judge and jury, are left with five possible 'verdicts' of which one is open verdict. Even an open verdict would be a calamity for the Royal Establishment leaving a huge question mark hanging over the House of Windsor and its small army of professional parasites paid for by the long-suffering public.... Therefore, and without any surprise at all, Scott-Baker will now use the last few days of the Diana 'Inquest' to guide the jury towards arriving at an accident verdict and the odds are four-to-one in favour. He has stacked the odds in favour of an accident verdict and will do everything within his considerable power to help the tame and irrelevant jury return the verdict the Royal and Political Establishment want.

    Princess Diana was the most potent thorn in the side of the Royal Establishment since Wallis-Simpson

    In the same way that the Royal and Political Establishment wanted Diana out of the way because she was a potent threat their to their ongoing gravy train, those same flunkies want it to be recorded in history that her death was a terrible 'accident'. And we are asked to believe that the Royal Family and its personal security aka British intelligence, who did everything within their power to destroy the princess while she lived, simply stopped short of murdering her - very considerate of them! It is a "bridge too far" to accept their vainglorious demands and expectations because in the ten years it took for this 'inquest' or grotesque theatre to take place, 80 per cent of the British people came to believe that Princess Diana, their princess who reached out to them, the "People's Princess" was murdered to ensure her silence. Not just on the landmines issue or the Muslim relative to the heir of the throne routine but actually to ensure the devastating secrets in her box tricks held at Kensington Palace did not fall into the hands of a vengeful Mohamed Al Fayed and then enter the public domain with historic ramifications.

    And we have heard how self-confessed liar Paul Burrell burned letters addressed to Princess Diana in his garden to ensure they did not leak out. There is also a similar tale from the Metropolitan Police regarding Prince Philip's letters to Diana and apparently these were lost or 'misplaced' - conveniently beyond recovery! Is there a single rational person in society who believes that there has not been a conspiracy between vested interests to destroy vital evidence so damning it could destroy several members of the Royal Family, particularly Prince Charles? If there is one person who believes this nonsense despite the wealth of evidence to prove this policy of deliberate and attempted eradication of evidence, I will gladly take them through the facts pro bono.

    The 31 March 2008 will be remembered as the day when the British Royal Establishment finally concluded their Diana Theatre in Box 73 of the Royal Cinema of 'Justice' and in so doing hammered the final nail into their coffin. For within 20 years at current trends, new anti-Establishment socio-political forces will finally triumph over the Royal Establishment and its decadent three-party State. There is no easy road to victory but through a series of battles with the old order in the public and political domains we will emerge victorious and then the real history of this time will be written by those who were denied their rights and were so compelled to join the socio-political forces of the emerging New Order.

    In closing, I urge the great many people who have followed our coverage of what should have been an inquest into the deaths of Diana and Dodi not to despair. This is not a defeat, it is an illusion of 'victory' by the Royal Establishment and it is a mark of their sheer desperation to avoid their eventual collapse and total defeat. The wheels of history are turning unstoppably in our favour and in progressive motions grinding the old order into the dustbin of history.

  • SOURCE Simon R Smith,Editor,News Alliance UK (PULLED)
    British and American media have been protecting the fascist evil bastards that masquerade in their robes and regalia by artificially creating foreign terrorists .But the biggest terrorist threats to mankind are the unaccountable,unelected masonic mobsters destroying the family in their tyranny and under the guise of illegal outrageous legal systems created to fleece billions from the unsuspecting public.Those moneys end up in the masonic coffers to further fund the rise of the fascist surveillance state they THINK they can create in their megalomania.

    They may not use bombs or bullets but they cause more damage and harm than all the arsenals around the world.They have their own army to protect them while they dish out judgements that destroy families and utterly abuse our children in the most horrendous psychological mind games anyone will ever face.The ultimate goal the stealthy theft of our homes,land and business's.They dont do what Mugabe does evict and demolish, NO they EVICT and add your home to their massive portfolio of properties that have been stolen for their own legal dynasties. Wars can clearly be seen by the damage to buildings and property but the wars these fascists create are carefully manufactured to have minimal physical damage but create horrendous stress for the victims who have to participate in the mind games they use to destroy and ultimately fleece the selected candidate.

    They also ensure the evil criminal fraternity that are part of their little secret clubs walk away scot free to continue the reign of terror against anyone who becomes a victim of their massive masonic brutality. The myriad of goons they have planted in almost every area of our lives and that can create the torture that allows them to get away with murder are deviously planned and requires maximum support from the press barons who have allowed this evil sick regime to plunder our lives for far to long.

    The media are at the tip of this evil network of gangsters that are riding roughshod over our rights and freedoms and seldom exposed due to the enormous complicity of those controlling our news .The fodder they feed us, enslaving the population to believe they are protecting us from each other when the finger should be pointed directly at the political ,legal and police mobsters that abuse and destroy our lives with impunity. Also a media that conspires and is ultimately complicit with the sick society Britain and America has become ,closely followed by all the other parts of the British empire that thought they had independence but for the judicial terrorists that ensure the British establishments judicial boot continues to abuse the people of the world that have had to tolerate this bunch of traitors who sit and DICTATE the punishment decent law abiding citizens have had to endure because of the utter tyranny they operate in.

    THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST EVIL NETWORK OF CONTROL ANY SOCIETY HAS HAD TO TOLERATE.More evil than the NAZI's as this is worldwide and hidden by a media that thinks it can continue to provide the fabrication that creates the illusion for them to operate behind.So they create mythical terrorists to divert the populations attention away from the real judicial terrorists that continue to destroy our countries infrastructure.

    More and more people are joining the resistance movement online against the masonic mobsters who have been allowed to flourish thanks to those press barons that are in their pocket.The evil network cannot and will not get away with the most evil humanitarian catastrophe this world have ever seen,hidden behind the bubble gum facade of that complicit media's lies and deceit.
    Most people think working hard ,bringing up a family and at times struggling to meet the bills is the most important part of everyday life. What goes on in the legal and political worlds really doesn't interest them as long as they have a roof over their head and food on the table.It comes as a shock when the reality is enormously different from the one portrayed on the telly,the skilful productions that show dramas about how our legal system and police operate.Though the works of fiction will soon sink in when you enter the realms of the artful dodgers who make the small times hoodlums pale by comparison.

    One day most people in their life will waken up and find they are forced into the realms of the legal vortex of British courts.Divorce is the most likely,but a serious accident or something threatening your business may force an issue that mistakenly the OTHER party thinks can only be resolved in a court of law. If you have ever accidently put your finger in a light socket you might get an inkling of what you are about to be put through.The reality that the illusive media portray of that system is so far from the truth as little of it resembles what in effect you are going to experience.You may have worked a lifetime with two or maybe even three jobs with long hours and here we have the artful dodgers who do NOTHING for the economy of a country and anything they might suggest they do do is another myth born of arrogance and pomposity that only the legal fraternity will utter.

    Here we have a scenario where a single sheet of A4 paper crafted in the correct format will almost certainly strip you of your property and livelyhood ,but most importantly your children ,at the nod and stroke of a masonic judges pen. You always imagined it was criminals who STOLE from you ,not those deemed fit to administer the law.But it is how they conspire to ABUSE the law that lets them ,at least in their eyes anyway,remove your worldly possessions legitimately with little or no effort and with impunity.

    You wont see a jury to protect your interests impartially,nor any form of recorder, on occasion they may bring in one of their own for their consumption and will record how the masonic judge wants the proceedings to be recorded.You maybe forced to litigate yourself ,after trying numerous legal firms who you find work behind your back, charge extortionate rates and fleece you before you even get into the court. Worst still you maybe complain to their regulatory body,The Law Society hoping for some form of recompense for the stress and worry they have put you through,but that will guarantee you will NEVER get representation and more than likely you will find all sorts of means will be conjured up to persecute you for DARING to challenge the integrity of one of their own.

    UK law and its purveyors of those laws is the BIGGEST criminal racket anywhere in this country.The very law enforcers who we expect to uphold our laws, have a vested interest in distorting those laws for their own financial gain.Most will have vast property portfolio's that have come from young naive couples who did not realise a mortgage was the noose they put around your neck .At some point in the future ,that same lawyer, will reel back in the very property initially purchased on your behalf but will later use to fleece you with firstly , the enormous legal bill for their assistance in your legal matter,then when those fees reach a suitably extortionate amount will steal your property at a greatly reduced price and bankrupt you making sure you CANNOT counter sue for damages.

    On many occasions the Legal Aid board will be behind these schemes propping up lawyers to ensure the case drags on for years and increases enormously the legal bill at the end when they come to make you homeless and penniless.

    For anyone that has not yet faced this fascist system they may believe ,thanks to being brainwashed by the media, that would be an impossible scenario. But this is happening in every court room the length and breadth of Britain.Lives being destroyed ,assets seized on a whim and massive corruption by a conspiracy of lawyers and judges acting ONLY in the best interests of their large bank balances.

    This is another reminder to Britains media of their part in these crimes as once again another press release will likely go unheeded by Britains press barons. They are as much controlled by those forces as the rest of us .That supposed impartial media have lawyers behind the scenes working to ensure little of this gets into the media they have controlled for far to long.But for the internet their crimes would have gone on unpublished. The victims now have a platform to inform and warn the public of the enormous threat to their families ,homes and assets.A much bigger threat than any terrorist they can conjure up, to distract the unsuspecting public's attention from what they are doing right under our noses.DESTROYING LIVES IN THEIR UTTER GREED.


    John Wilson from Common Law Rights Group and LJPR challenges Ozzie judges over their jurisdiction and calling them traitors.Australia like the UK has been stripped of jury hearings from procedures leaving unaccountable powers to tyrants abusing our citizens.The population having their assets and homes stolen by a bunch of crooks masquerading in their robes and regalia usurping the right under common law to TRIAL BY JURY.The SERFS will no longer tolerate these EVIL CRETINS abusing our good citizens.

    To combat the ever-increasing secrecy during hearings in British courts, it is imperative to campaign for court hearings to be recorded by the press and public in the spirit of accountability. This will eliminate most of the problems people are facing with judges and lawyers making statements in open court which are then denied at a later stage and court transcripts denied to interested parties to ensure that mistakes and corruptions are covered up.

    Naturally, there have to be exceptions to the open recording policy, namely in the case of genuine national security matters or where an individual in a sensitive medical negligence case wants a hearing to be held in camera but such rulings should only be made by judges who have not taken the Crown Judicial Oath. This is another matter which needs to be addressed in that judges should swear an oath only to Parliament and the people not to the Crown. This change of policy would wipe out a huge amount of prejudice against people who have for years campaigned for justice against an entirely biased system beholden to uphold the power of the status quo. Would you be prepared to support a campaign for greater accountability in the courts along the lines suggested? Civil Disobedience marches tend to involve the police and they almost always provoke violent incidents to ensure arrests are made of activists who can then be discredited in the courts and usually sentenced to lengthy jail sentences to put them out of action. We must be smart and evolve new tactics to outwit the forces the State/Establishment and by so doing stay in the business of meaning business to get the law changed!

    Please let me have your thoughts. Editor News Alliance

    Preliminary issues....need jury trial...
    by Chris Starkey

    As a participant in many actions against Lloyd's related entities I have noticed that worldwide, they usually block us on preliminary issues such as time bar, forum, and the other issues you mentioned below. These preliminary issues are always decided by a judge. We always lose (with one exception). A friend is in the process of writing a white paper which will show that the judges in England are part of the English establishment where there is a built in bias against the citizen in favor of the corporations and institutions. This bias is accomplished by way of Royal Charters where the Queen dictates in writing that the particular entity shall be given favorable treatment in court. The judges take an oath of loyalty to the Queen which means that the judges abide by the edicts in the Royal Charters to provide favorable treatment.

    Now how does that relate to New York judges? In England we have strong proof in writing of bias against us. In the US, so far as I know, there is no such proof. However, it is clear to me that there is the same bias against us. How it got here I do not know. What I do know is that US judges laud the English legal system. Further I know that this is a monstrous mistake as the English legal system is in place to protect the Queen and her establishment and justice for the citizens mean nothing at all to them. The solution to this problem is to have a jury trial on all issues including preliminary issues. From reading various white papers provided to me by four legal "gurus" from around the world, I find that the jury trial concept originally included everything to be adjudicated.....the facts..the law...preliminary issues....everything. Then gradually over time the judges have usurped power and taken for themselves the right to interpret the law and the right to determine the preliminary issues.

    What I am saying is that we should demand a jury trial on the preliminary issues on constitutional grounds as our right. Naturally judges who will decide whether or not we can do this will want to protect the prerogatives that all judges have accumulated over the years. How to break this insidious loop, I do not know....and I expect it will not be easy, but I see this as the main path to justice for names in all cases.

    Holocaust representative causing misery to thousands with illegal moneylending
    A justice of the peace has been busted by Scotland's loan shark squad. Gerald Levin, a respected leader of Glasgow's Jewish community, has been lending cash at 70 per cent interest over just 30 weeks. After a raid at his HQ, one client was found to have paid back £2100 on a loan of just £900.
  • Holocaust ceremony
    The shocking decision to let a judge walk free without a jury trial shows the lengths the British judiciary go to protect their own.Especially those that show the perversions that allow tyranny and despotism to continue against natural justice expected of a civilized society .Britain's judiciary are operating a fascist regime while they bleat on about judicial independence and are getting away with murder.

  • Judge cleared of flashing will not face second trial
  • Judge Richards now back deciding on sex cases in court