You would think from the vast propaganda network that provides the smokescreen and illusion that the British royals have obtained their exhaulted position of riches and grandeur due to their entrepreneurial skills and great business acumen. However behind the facade lies the biggest bunch of thugs and bullies this world has ever encountered.

Their vast wealth was NEVER earned but ruthlessly stolen using armies and battles that they waged across the globe and why they and their media endlessly waffle on about the great and good men who fought their bloody wars so they could remain the richest tyrants across the globe.

Today they have been forced to use a more subtle and devious means to plunder the victims of their tyranny. The judicial mafia , who all answer to the masonic network, are used in secret court systems and star chambers with NO JURIES, to plunder the vast estates while their media provide the illusion that anyone entering these courts will somehow get JUSTICE.

As a group who have seen many many victims lose their children, homes,business's ,assets and in some cases lives, the wickedness and evil that created the royals vast empire throughout history continues in the hallowed walls of the modern day feudal system were Queen Elizabeth's judicial lackeys are HAND PICKED for their devious personality flaws who now plunder in a different way from the past. That was in a time when the crown's armies would march into a town or village and wipe out the residents, stealing their land and properties for the crown. NEVER underestimate their wealth, they own at least one sixth of the world's land mass at the last count and only through the most devious and malicious use of the legal system, laws are brushed aside and utterly misused and abused when the royals and their henchmen make you a target for the vast plundering of estates to keep them at the top of the ultra rich pyramid using their hand picked judicial goons.

We want to educate those as yet to witness and fall victim to this shower of evil bastards who daily are destroying lives in the greed and wickedness that passes as some sort of justice system. That will only be achieved when the royals and their judicial henchmen are removed and replaced with juries and where justice will eventually prevail, allowing the courts to be returned to the long suffering public who have been deprived of any legal means to protect their lives, homes and children.



    No-jury trial was set up to avoid intimidation of jurors

    The jury-less trial of Peter Blake and others is the first of its kind under the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to prevent jury nobbling. The only other judge-only trials for serious cases, known as Diplock trials, have been in Northern Ireland. A series of special arrangements and procedures are in place because of he absence of a jury, some of which follow procedures developed in the Diplock courts:

    - The trial of Peter Blake, John Twomey, Barry Hibberd and Glen Cameron is expected to be far shorter and is listed for three months, whereas the last trial that collapsed in connection with the Heathrow robbery had already run for six months and only reached the end of the prosecution case.

    - The judge himself is both judge and jury: he resolves matters of law and has to do “mental gymnastics”, as one barrister put it, if he excludes evidence as inadmissable — trying to put it out of his mind and to pretend that he has never seen it. The application for a judge-only trial came after the collapse in 2008 of the case before Judge Roberts, QC. Because the decision incolved important issues of public policy, he referred it to a senior judge.

    In March 2009 Mr Justice Calvert-Smith looked at two other options with varying levels of juror protecton: the more intensive would have cost about £6 million and required at least 82 police officers to be removed from their normal duties. The second would have cost £1.5 million and required at least 32 police officers. He ruled that there was evidence of a “real and present danger” of jury tampering at the trial and that risk would remain throughout, but he concluded that a “package” of measures to provide jury protection would be sufficient to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

    The Court of Appeal disagreed. Even if such steps were taken, the likelihood of tampering was “so substantial,” the judges said, as to make it necessary for a trial without a jury in the interests of justice.

  • Juries show society at its fairest
  • Defendant in historic trial without jury goes on run from High Court
    judges The biggest threat to British citizens are the crowns judiciary who have been slowly removing juries from all but the most serious cases and are using STAR chambers and secret courts to fleece the population of their assets, homes and children.

    Two thirds of jurors do not understand what judges tell them about the law when they retire to consider their verdicts, according to a ground-breaking study into the secrets of the jury room. The findings will trigger an overhaul of the courts.

    The investigation found that jurors frequently used the internet to read about trials on which they were sitting, risking miscarriages of justice. In 2008, juries in three Crown Court trials had to be discharged because they used the internet inappropriately. The study, to be published today by the Ministry of Justice, found that:

    • all-white juries do not discriminate against black defendants;

    • men sitting on juries are less likely than women to listen to arguments and change their minds;

    • conviction rates in Crown Courts varied from 53 per cent to 69 per cent.

    The study was carried out by Professor Cheryl Thomas, of University College London, and is based on 69,000 verdicts across 18 months. It concludes that juries are fair and efficient but that more could be done to help them to perform their task. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, recently raised concerns that in the internet age jurors will increasingly have difficulty in listening to evidence and receiving oral instructions.

    Judges are likely now to look at how they can simplify the way they sum up and give directions and ensure that more juries get written aides-mémoire. Lord Justice Thomas, deputy head of criminal justice, said that work was under way to ensure that more written material was available, and that judges were being urged to give written directions in all but the simplest cases. Judge Keith Cutler, a senior circuit judge, said that the study vindicated juries and laid to rest several myths, such as their alleged failure to convict in rape cases. He said that written instructions may be extended to smaller trials.

    “It may worry people that if jurors don’t understand then innocent people are being convicted,” he said. “But there is always the lee-way of the majority verdict.” He added that there was far more interaction between juries and judges now and that jurors felt able to ask questions when they needed clarification.

  • Jurors don't understand judge's directions, study finds
  • Jurors 'fail to understand judges' instructions', study of 69,000 verdicts finds

    "I will do right by all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. "

    Judges and the Constitution

    This section sets out information on why the judiciary’s independence is vital to our democracy, and also why the changes introduced in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, are important. For example, the Lord Chancellor – a politician and member of the Cabinet – will no longer be the head of the judiciary; this responsibility will now pass to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. The previous Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, discusses Judges, the Constitution and Judicial Independence in a video and podcast interview, available on this website.

    Our current legal system has developed over hundreds of years and still continues to develop today. This development influences the way the judiciary perform their duties, however, for hundreds of years the overriding principle of our legal system has been that judges are independent of government. That means they make their decisions without interference from the government or the executive. Judges also do not get involved with politics. When judges are sworn in they take two oaths/affirmations. The first is the oath of allegiance and the second the judicial oath, these are collectively referred to as the judicial oath.

    Oath of allegiance

    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. ” Judicial oath

    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. " Affirmation - Allegiance

    "I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors according to Law" Affirmation - Judicial

    I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ____________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour affection or ill will.

    iris josiah How the criminals running British courts get rid of any judge that shows any sign of a conscience. Especially if they are any colour other than WHITE.

    Magistrate who won victimisation case sacked for misconduct

    A black magistrate who won a victimisation case against the Ministry of Justice has been sacked for misconduct. An employment tribunal ruled earlier this year that Iris Josiah was treated unfairly after she complained about ''hostile treatment'' of black defendants in Enfield, north London. But after an investigation into unrelated allegations she has been removed from the bench, the Judicial Communications Office said.

    A probe was launched after her landlord complained Miss Josiah failed to pay her rent and ''misrepresented'' her role as a magistrate. The panel found she did not tell officials about court proceedings against her. It concluded her conduct ''fell below the standards expected'' of JPs over a long period. Last year Josiah, of Lightcliffe Road in Palmers Green, north London, sought £75,000 from the Ministry of Justice and alleged she was discriminated against because of her race.

    The tribunal ruled in August she had been victimised but concluded she was not the victim of ''direct race discrimination''. A spokesman for the Judicial Complaints Office said today: ''Ms Josiah, a magistrate on the Enfield Division of the North West London Bench, has been removed from the magistracy following an independent investigation into her conduct. ''This investigation looked at a complaint by Ms Josiah's landlord concerning the alleged non-payment of rent and misrepresentation of her role as a magistrate.

    ''It also examined Ms Josiah's apparent failure to notify her bench of two separate court proceedings against her. ''This panel found Ms Josiah's conduct over a lengthy period of time fell below the standards expected of a magistrate and that she had failed to notify her bench of court proceedings. ''These findings have led the conduct panel to recommend the removal of Ms Josiah from the magistracy.

    ''The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have agreed with this recommendation and removed Ms Josiah from the bench.''

  • 'Racist UK judges forced me out,' claims black magistrate
    hillary transue At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

    Prosecutors say Judges Michael T. Conahan, and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., above, took kickbacks to send teenagers to detention centers. Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment. She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

    “I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare,” said Hillary, 17, who was sentenced in 2007. “All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing.” The answers became a bit clearer on Thursday as the judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and a colleague, Michael T. Conahan, appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care. While prosecutors say that Judge Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Judge Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

    “In my entire career, I’ve never heard of anything remotely approaching this,” said Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim, who was appointed by the State Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Judge Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention. The case has shocked Luzerne County, an area in northeastern Pennsylvania that has been battered by a loss of industrial jobs and the closing of most of its anthracite coal mines. And it raised concerns about whether juveniles should be required to have counsel either before or during their appearances in court and whether juvenile courts should be open to the public or child advocates.

    If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are expected to be sentenced in the next several months. Lawyers for both men declined to comment. Since state law forbids retirement benefits to judges convicted of a felony while in office, the judges would also lose their pensions. With Judge Conahan serving as president judge in control of the budget and Judge Ciavarella overseeing the juvenile courts, they set the kickback scheme in motion in December 2002, the authorities said.

    They shut down the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was in poor condition, the authorities said, and maintained that the county had no choice but to send detained juveniles to the newly built private detention centers. Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments to a company they control in Florida. Though he pleaded guilty to the charges Thursday, Judge Ciavarella has denied sentencing juveniles who did not deserve it or sending them to the detention centers in a quid pro quo with the centers.

    But Assistant United States Attorney Gordon A. Zubrod said after the hearing that the government continues to charge a quid pro quo. “We’re not negotiating that, no,” Mr. Zubrod said. “We’re not backing off.”

    No charges have been filed against executives of the detention centers. Prosecutors said the investigation into the case was continuing. For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Judge Ciavarella was unusually harsh. He sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a state rate of 1 in 10. He also routinely ignored requests for leniency made by prosecutors and probation officers.

    “The juvenile system, by design, is intended to be a less punitive system than the adult system, and yet here were scores of children with very minor infractions having their lives ruined,” said Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center. “There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down.” Last year, the Juvenile Law Center, which had raised concerns about Judge Ciavarella in the past, filed a motion to the State Supreme Court about more than 500 juveniles who had appeared before the judge without representation. The court originally rejected the petition, but recently reversed that decision.

    The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that children have a constitutional right to counsel. But in Pennsylvania, as in at least 20 other states, children can waive counsel, and about half of the children that Judge Ciavarella sentenced had chosen to do so. Only Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina require juveniles to have representation when they appear before judges. Clay Yeager, the former director of the Office of Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania, said typical juvenile proceedings are kept closed to the public to protect the privacy of children.

    “But they are kept open to probation officers, district attorneys, and public defenders, all of whom are sworn to protect the interests of children,” he said. “It’s pretty clear those people didn’t do their jobs.” On Thursday in Federal District Court in Scranton, more than 80 people packed every available seat in the courtroom. At one point, as Assistant United States Attorney William S. Houser explained to Judge Edwin M. Kosik that the government was willing to reach a plea agreement with the men because the case involved “complex charges that could have resulted in years of litigation,” one man sitting in the audience said “bull” loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. One of the parents at the hearing was Susan Mishanski of Hanover Township.

    Her son, Kevin, now 18, was sentenced to 90 days in a detention facility last year in a simple assault case that everyone had told her would result in probation, since Kevin had never been in trouble and the boy he hit had only a black eye. “It’s horrible to have your child taken away in shackles right in front of you when you think you’re going home with him,” she said. “It was nice to see them sitting on the other side of the bench.”


    A millionaire businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs who threatened to kill his family was jailed for 30 months today - while his attackers remain free to walk the streets. Munir Hussain, his wife and their three children stumbled on three intruders, wearing balaclavas, in their home when they returned from their mosque during Ramadan. The family were ordered to lie on the floor of the living room with their hands behind their backs.

    As four of them were tied up, Mr Hussain's teenage son escaped through a window. Two of the raiders fled when they realised the youngster had gone.

    Mr Hussain then threw a coffee table at the third man, 56-year-old Walid Salem, hitting him in the face. He then enlisted his brother Tokeer in chasing the offenders down, bringing one of them to the ground in a nearby garden in the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far, leaving intruder Salem with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

    Judge Reddihough noted Mr Hussain's 'courage' but said he had carried out a 'dreadful, violent attack' on the intruder as he lay defenceless. Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident on September 3, 2008, but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. Salem, who has a string of 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year.

    The brothers, described as family men at the heart of the local community, were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after a trial earlier this year. The prosecution alleged two other men took part in the so-called 'revenge attack' with them. Munir Hussain was given a 30-month sentence, because Judge John Reddihough decided he had been subjected to more provocation than his brother, Tokeer, who was jailed for 39 months.

    Judge Reddihough said Munir Hussain's family had been subject to a 'serious and wicked offence' and praised the bravery of his teenage son who escaped to raise the alarm. The judge told them: 'It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

    'However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.' Sentencing the brothers, whose mother had died just before the incident, the judge added: 'This case is a tragedy for you and your families.

    What is the law on defending your home?

    If you use force which is 'not excessive' against burglars then the law is on your side. Last year's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill contained clauses to protect people from prosecution if they act instinctively and out of fear for their safety.

    Justice Secretary Jack Straw said:

    'Law-abiding citizens should not be put off tackling criminals by fear of excessive investigation. 'For a passer-by witnessing a street crime or a householder faced with a burglar, we are reassuring them that if they use force which is not excessive or disproportionate, the law really is behind them.' 'Sadly, I have no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you.

    'This is in order to reflect the serious consequences of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them.' The brothers, who live near each other in High Wycombe, did not react as they were sentenced, but members of their family watching from the public gallery tearfully shook their heads. Michael Wolkind, defending, argued that his client was the 'real victim' in the case.

    Mr Wolkind said the case had similarities to that of farmer Tony Martin, who shot a teenage intruder, noting there was public support in both cases. He told the court: 'The public surely do not want Munir Hussain to receive imprisonment. I don't seek a medal, I seek justice for him.' Munir Hussain, usually a controlled man, had simply acted in the heat of the moment in 'extreme circumstances of stress', he added.

    The prosecution said the Hussains were not being convicted for apprehending Salem, but for the 'excessive force' they used on him. Hilary Neville, prosecuting, said: 'What started as reasonable self defence by Munir Hussain then turned into excessive force by virtue of a sustained attack by Munir, Tokeer and at least two others.' The court heard sentencing would have an impact on the local economy, with 10 members of staff losing their jobs at Soundsorba, the company run by Munir Hussain, who employs his brother as a technical director.

    The firm, which produces sound-absorbing material, has an annual turnover of £2.5m. Munir Hussain feels he let down his wife Shaheen Begum and sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year-old daughter Arooj, by failing to defend them against Salem and his gang. His wife had suffered a stroke prior to the incident, and had since had a mini stroke.

    There were now fears for his mental health, a psychiatrist who assessed him told the judge. Dr Philip Joseph said Munir Hussain could even attempt suicide if his depression reached that stage, saying: 'He would be in his cell, worrying about his family, thinking about the many losses he has suffered as a result of this incident. 'I would have concerns he would make a serious bid to harm himself.'

    Before today's sentencing, a senior police officer had told Munir Hussain, who previously won an Asian businessman of the year award and is head of the Race Equality Council for High Wycombe, that he had sympathy for him. The court heard Chief Inspector Colin Seaton of Thames Valley Police, the senior officer in the case, approached Munir Hussain after a community meeting, asking if there was anything he could do to help.

    'He stated that whatever happened that night in the heat of the moment, he was still sad to see Munir Hussain and Tokeer Hussain convicted,' Mr Wolkind added. 'He said they were outstanding members of the community and they had done a great deal of work in the community, both before this incident and afterwards.'

    Judicial mafia £139,000 finery bill is daylight ‘robery’

    THEY demanded we tighten our belts, but it seems the Government has forgotten its own advice when it comes to pomp and pageantry. Newly released documents reveal that the Ministry of Justice recently spent £139,000 kitting out the country’s 12 most senior judges in ceremonial garb.

    That works out at more than £11,500 each for the black brocade and gold lace robes bestowed upon the newly appointed justices of the Supreme Court. The institution formally replaced the House of Lords as the country’s highest appeals tribunal two months ago. It has the final say on civil cases from throughout Britain and on criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will also settle any disputes over devolution.

    Eleven of the judges were photographed taking an oath of allegiance at the official opening of the court’s opulent new London HQ in October. But the colourful finery they were sporting is not for day-to-day court duties but must only be worn on ceremonial occasions. These include the State Opening of Parliament and events marking the beginning of the legal year.

    Credit crunch

    Critics last night branded the spending as outrageous at a time when the national debt is at a record high and the credit crunch has left millions struggling to make ends meet. Matthew Elliott, chief executive at the TaxPayers’ Alliance said, “It’s ridiculous that ministers are squandering hundreds of thousands of pounds on swanky ceremonial robes at a time when public finances are in a dire state and taxpayers are facing cuts in frontline services. “These purchases display skewed spending priorities on the part of the Supreme Court and also send a terrible message to the people who have forked out for these unnecessary fripperies.”

    Pete Wishart, the SNP Home Affairs spokesman, added, “This is a real life case of the emperor’s new clothes. “Hard-working people, struggling to make ends meet will see past the splendour and be outraged by what they see underneath.

    “At a time when the public is tightening the belt on its finances it seems the only thing these Law Lords are tightening is the belt on their overpriced robes. “This is supposed to be the seat of the country’s justice system but there’s not much justice in lifting £139,000 from the public purse to fund a lavish clothes bill.”

    Under fire

    The Supreme Court, set up by Tony Blair six years ago and launched in a blaze of publicity in October, has already come under fire for the amount it has cost taxpayers. It features carpets designed by Sir Peter Blake, creator of The Beatles’ Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover, huge glass panels etched with Magna Carta quotations and bathrooms fitted with Dyson hand-dryers costing £700. Even the bill for its new logo, based on the national flowers of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, reportedly came in at more than £50,000.

    A spokesperson for the Supreme Court admitted the justices don’t wear robes in court. But she sought to justify the expenditure by explaining that they need them for “certain ceremonial occasions”.

    She added, “The robes are made from black brocade with gold lace and some gold ornamentation on the sleeves with the Supreme Court emblem embroidered on the back. “They have been designed specifically to last at least 50 years and they don’t belong to the individual justices but to the Supreme Court so they will be passed down from justice to justice.”

  • £140,000 bill for Supreme Court robes judges will hardly wear
    In its mania for jailing people, Britain has declared trivial offences crimes

    A libertarian coalition is emerging in the US to resist an ever expanding statute book. The need is just as urgent here

    I have a foolproof scheme for cutting crime in Britain. It would slash court overcrowding, rescue legal aid, empty prisons and calm public fears. It would save billions of pounds, and all without endangering a hair on a single Briton's head. The scheme involves removing thousands of recently "invented" offences from the statute book. This will not happen, because if there is one thing a macho politician loves, it is declaring any social problem or public disobedience a crime, and hiring more police to confront it. Constantly extending criminality enables prime ministers and home secretaries to walk tall down Main Street, pistols twirling in their fingers, and with no care for who gets hurt. In a little-reported case at Oxford crown court on Monday, a 60-year-old businessman named Philip Bowles, with no previous conviction, found himself jailed for supposedly switching a VAT liability between two companies. He bitterly protested that he was unable to mount an effective defence because his cash had been seized in advance from his office, as an "asset" under David Blunkett's crass Proceeds of Crime Act. In addition his tax records had been taken by administrators. Bowles was refused legal aid to get a forensic accountant to exhume his seized records, which he thus could not use to defend himself.

    After his conviction, an independent financial report into the tax records was submitted to the court but the judge was clearly confused at the sentencing. He admitted that the documents might have exonerated Bowles and implied that there was a case for the jury decision being overturned on appeal. He said he was "loth to put a man in prison if he shouldn't be there", yet added that the whole thing had "dragged on". So he called Bowles a "very serious cheat", banged him up for three and a half years and demanded he pay £130,000 in prosecution costs. To all appearances, a gross injustice has been done to lift a large sum of money from a man carefully rendered defenceless by the authorities to enrich their budgets. Since the pointless, life-destroying jail term could cost the state as much as £140,000, the whole farrago will leave the taxpayer worse off than if Bowles and Revenue & Customs had been left to squabble before an arbitrator. Another crime is added to the statistics, and work is created for all. Only the Americans among civilised democracies love prisons more than the British. For imprisonment Britain leads Europe, jailing convicts for non-violent crimes that most countries handle with non-custodial sentences, or do not regard as crimes at all. Thousands of British offences are for the "crime" of not obeying a government official.

    Last month a Swansea man was jailed for two and a half years for peeping at naked women on holiday. In October a Newcastle man was jailed for 18 months for letting a toddler smoke a cigarette. A postman was jailed for four months for failing to deliver letters after being late for work. A student narrowly escaped jail for drunkenly urinating on a war memorial. There is a move, led by the children's secretary, Ed Balls, that could lead to people being jailed for lying about their residence in a school catchment area. It is only a matter of time before someone is jailed for taking a friend's child on a school trip without state clearance, under the Stasi-like Independent Safeguarding Authority. Meanwhile Home Office arrest and conviction targets put constant pressure on the police to pursue such ubiquitous offences as bad driving or drug use. The iron route to understanding the modern state is to follow the money flow to the professions. Advocates for restorative justice point out that most victims of minor crime brought face to face with offenders do not want them to go to jail. They want an apology and financial restitution. But since restorative justice offers no financial gain to the justice system in Britain, it is not financed, any more than is proper drug rehabilitation.

    The Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has been more obsessed with imprisonment than any predecessor. Martin Narey, when he led the prison service, complained that in the mid-1990s just 5% of shoplifters were sent to prison. Under Blair this rose fourfold. The number of over-50s entering the criminal justice system rose by almost 50% in eight years, largely through the police filling targets by chasing vehicle crime. Every category saw an increase in the proportion of convictions leading to custody. Labour has created more than 3,000 new offences since 1997, of which 1,472 at the last count were imprisonable. You can go to jail in Britain for not having a licence for a church concert, smoking in a public place, selling a grey squirrel, trans-shipping unlicensed fish, or disobeying a health and safety inspector. In many cases a prison sentence is casually tacked on the end of a statute, like some macho cherry on a cake. Parliamentarians, judges, lawyers, prison officers all complain of overwork – but complain all the way to the bank. An intriguing insight into this process is given in a batch of cases now before the US supreme court, challenging the "over-criminalisation" of American society. The most prominent is the appeal of the press baron, Conrad Black, against conviction for denying his shareholders his "honest services". This catch-all "default offence" is like tax evasion, a gift to federal prosecutors.

    Questioning by the court's justices suggests a growing desire to bring this explosion of state power under eventual control. One of them, Stephen Breyer, told the US attorney general with reference to Black's honest services: "There are 150 million workers in the United States. I think possibly 147 million would flunk your test." The smart money is on Black getting off. The case is one of those championed by an intriguing coalition of lobbyists whose like is not seen in Britain. It embraces both left and right of the political spectrum under a libertarian banner. Defence lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union are allied to the conservative Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. A fellow at the latter, Reagan's attorney general, Ed Meese, has drawn a line at 4,000 federal crimes, pointing out that the US tradition "has always been to construe criminal laws narrowly to protect people from the power of the state".

    The left's objection to the size of the US prison population thus chimes with taxpayers protesting its cost. The New York Times reports that constitutionalists are demanding protection for states from federal laws; property interests object to the arbitrary seizure of "proceeds of crime"; libertarians claim the honest-service law is so vague that "all Americans violate it every day", even rightwing Christians want some scope for sinners' redemption. To sociologists, the "reconceptualising of social problems as crimes" raises foolish hopes of curing them through the law. With Labour now leading the imprisonment lobby and David Cameron terrified of being called a hoodie- hugger, the chance of a libertarian coalition in Britain is minimal. State power still has all the best tunes. But those who regard the public realm in Britain as over-criminalised, and the imprisonment rate a social abomination, see a new dawn across the Atlantic. Who would have guessed its harbinger would be a certain Conrad Black?

    US judges admit taking kickbacks

    The judges face sentences of more than seven years

    Two US judges charged with taking more than $2m (£1.4m) in kickbacks from a privately-run detention centre have pleaded guilty to fraud. Prosecutors say Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took the money in return for giving young offenders long sentences to serve in the centre. The deal allowed PA Child Care LLC and a sister company to receive extra government funds, they say.

    The judges in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, have both been suspended. They have pleaded guilty to honest services fraud and tax fraud. The plea agreements provide for prison sentences of more than seven years.

    Mr Conahan had shut down a county detention centre in 2002 and signed a deal with PA Child Care LLC to send offenders to its new centre, prosecutors say. They said Mr Ciavarella sent youths to the detention centre while taking money in return, though the judge has specifically denied sending youths to jail for cash, the Associated Press news agency reports.


    Campaigners have complained that Mr Ciavarella gave out overly harsh sentences for minor offenses. A spokeswoman for the non-profit Juvenile Law Center said 1,000-2,000 juveniles who came before the judge between 2003 and 2006 received excessively harsh sentences. Many of the children were first-time offenders and had no lawyers to defend them.

    The judge sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centres from 2003 to 2006, compared with a state average of one in 10, the AP reported. "Your statement that I have disgraced my judgeship is true," Mr Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court, Reuters news agency reports. "My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame." Mr Conahan made no comment.


    A MUM who took her three-year-old son to an all-night drink and drugs party was spared jail for cruelty - because the lad has been taken away from her. Cops called to the rowdy bash found Mary Brown lying covered in vomit. Her toddler was roaming around as revellers binged on booze and cannabis and Brown, 22, had been assaulted during a fracas. Alexia Zimber, prosecuting, told Newcastle Crown Court: "The property was in a state of disrepair. There was little furnishing. All the adults, save for Brown, got drunk. "Some were smoking cannabis. This was all in the presence of her son.

    "Police arrived at 3.20am and found him wandering. Brown was lying in a doorway in distress, with vomit in her hair and on her clothing." Brown, of Blyth, Northumberland, said she was not drunk and did not take drugs and this was accepted. Her son, who was in a dirty state, is no longer in her care. She admitted child cruelty by neglect.

    But the judge, Mr Recorder Nolan, gave her a two-year community order. He said: "You have lost your son. It is something you have to bear the rest of your life. "That is a greater punishment than any criminal court can impose."

    joanne mayor COPS were left fuming after a court gave bail to a junkie with 166 past crimes - just hours before they nicked her AGAIN.

    Sheriff Gerard MacMillan said he was "taking a chance" when he freed Joanne Mayor, who had led cops on a bizarre chase down a rail line after stripping topless. But shortly after, Mayor, 27, was arrested on suspicion of shoplifting - and held overnight. Astonishingly, she was set free with a slap-on-the wrist procurator fiscal's release. Over the next four weeks she was nicked on three more occasions - but managed every time to take advantage of the soft-touch justice system. She eventually handed HERSELF in to the city's sheriff court. And yesterday she was jailed for two months after she admitted stealing shampoo from a store - while she was on THREE bail orders.

    Last night a senior Tayside Police source said: "What is the point of us spending time and effort rounding repeat offenders up, just for them to be slapped on the wrist and told to be on their way? "On rare occasions they actually go to court - and then a sheriff decides she should be let out on bail. "It is just ludicrous. They are supposed to be kept in if there's a realistic chance they will offend on bail. Her criminal record could be weighed, not counted.

    "How can anyone justify giving her bail?

    "We've had to round her up several times since she got out, but what's the point?" Mum-of-one Mayor had 86 previous convictions in under a decade for her 166 offences. Sheriff Robert McCreadie said yesterday: "A court has to draw a line.

    "She is a nuisance. Public interest is best served by her being sent to prison." But he still said he would limit the term, even though he would have been justified in jailing her for much longer, as social work reports on the case had been ordered by the previous sheriff. Sentence for the rail offence - on the main line between Perth, Edinburgh and Glasgow - was deferred again.

    Upon entering the court, the usher behind us directed us to go to the right, and I, leading, went LEFT, to a row of tables and chairs placed at right angles to the bench. The court recorder ordered us to go back and to the right, whilst at the same time, the court usher tried to direct Julie to a seat over to the right. I requested Julie to come over to us, whereupon the Magistrate ordered us “to go over there” – whereupon Rebelleader and I informed the Magistrate, recorder and usher that we were comfortable where we were and could hear them alright.

    Meaningful frowns and looks exchanged between the three Magistrates, followed by looks of anger from the middle Magistrate......he then asked if Mrs, er,...Ms ANGELA JULIE DAY was present. Rebelleader, (now in his element), stated that the third party representative of Julie of the family Day, together with her lay advisors were present. The Magistrate asked the same question a couple of times and received the same answer from Rebelleader, who was then asked who we were, and the Magistrate was given our family names and that these were the names we were known by. Rebelleader then asked the Magistrate if he had an Oath of Office, to which the Magistrate replied he did not have to answer that. RL then asked how else could we be sure that he, the Magistrate had any authority to hold a court? The Magistrate then stated “Not relevant!” – I could see RebelLeader latch onto this immediately and he then asked the magistrate how wanting to establish Jurisdiction was “not relevant” RebelLeader went on ... “if you cannot or will not produce your Oath in this court then I will be forced to have the clerk call a constable and have you removed from this court for impersonating a judge.... NOW where is your Oath”

    At this point the Magistrate told RebelLeader to “Shut Up” to which RebelLeader loudly and indignantly replied “Sir, don’t tell me to shut up! I have as much right to speak in this court as you” RebelLeader then kept on with his persistent question, do you have your Oath in the Court? The Magistrate stated that HE was the authority in the court, whereby the recorder turned and informed the Magistrate that having sworn his Oath; he was not required to bring the Oath with him at each court attendance! RL then asked the recorder how else could we be assured that the person sitting there was authorised to do so? She, (the recorder) looked VERY nonplussed at this..and RL immediately addressed the Magistrate on the left and said “I have the lawful right to establish YOUR lawful right and authority to be here, NOW ... are you going to produce your Oath so that I may inspect it?” the magistrate in the middle said nothing and stared straight ahead as if the “program” in his mind had crashed – RebelLeader then turned his attention to the other Magistrates and reiterated .. “Are you going to produce your Oath in this court today – have YOU sworn an Oath?” said RebelLeader looking directly at the woman magistrate –to which she said “Yes”, whereupon RL looked at the Magistrate on the right and said “Sir?” to which he replied “Yes”. RL then again asked to see the Oath of office, to which the head honcho stated that RL had no right to demand to see the Oath!! To this RebelLeader once again said “Are you going to produce your Oath?” – Silence eminated from the bench, RebelLeader looked once again at the woman magistrate “Madam?” he asked – she simply sat and looked at him (I think her program had crashed by now) ... “Sir?” said RebelLeader in a loud voice intoning the same question at the other male magistrate – again Silence.

    RebelLeader then raised his hand in the air and said ... “This court takes Judicial notice of the Oath sworn by those person on the bench” he then said kept his hand in the air and proclaimed to the court in a loud voice “In the absence of a lawful judge I am now the highest authority in this court!” The centre magistrate must have rebooted his program while this was going on because he now said, “if you don’t answer the question of whether Ms. Julie Day is in this court I will hold you in contempt”

    I couldn’t swear to it but I think I saw RebelLeader grin slightly he quickly responded ... “Sir, will that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?” At this the magistrate folded up his books and whilst getting up from his chair, the Magistrate stated that the court was adjourned for five minutes, and muttered an aside to the female Magistrate that they would look at the books to see what charges they could bring!!!

    During the adjournment RebelLeader saw that ther appeared to be a Policeman in the court and he said to him .. “Excuse me, are you a constable?” to which the man replied “yes” RebelLeader then called him over and proceeded to ask the constable if he remembered the Oath that he swore when he became a policeman? The constable couldn’t recall and I nearly died laughing when RebelLeader said to him “well it begins ... ‘ I promise to serve well the queen and ends with ‘uphold the common law’” – at this the policeman mumbled “yeah something like that”

    RebelLeader then said to the constable, “I want you to understand that you may be called upon to make an arrest here today either by me or the people pretending to be magistrates up there. Now, if I call you to make an arrest and you refuse you will be in material breach of your Oath and I will prosecute your company for Malfeasance and you personally for dereliction of your sworn duty, If however you are called upon by those persons on the bench to arrest me – then know that I will not put up a struggle or become violent instead I will not “stand under” your reading of my rights and I will ask you which common law offence I am in breach of. I will require you to write that down in your notebook and you will be called upon by me in a court de jure (court by jury) to explain why you might have arrested me when no common law offence had been breached remembering that you are on Oath to uphold the common law.” With that RebelLeader returned to stand alongside myself and Julie.

    It was twenty three and a half minutes by the courtroom clock when they returned. We had remained standing throughout the whole fiasco and watched whilst the rest of the court attendees stood, and bowed to the Magistrates and the Magistrates bowed to them, before they all sat down again. (It must be remembered, that we had not yet approached anywhere near the point where the BYT and his colleague were asked regarding the complaint!)

    Then the clincher! – The Magistrate began the whole process again – by asking if ANGELA JULIE DAY was present!! RL gave the standard answer, to which the Magistrate took complete leave of any senses he had had until we arrived – and stated that “ As obviously ANGELA JULIE DAY was not present, there was no need of RL or my services, and that we should get out, - leave my court. - - WTF?? RL immediately held up his right hand and stated that we were Freemen on the Land, we had harmed no-one, and that we dismissed this court from its responsibility to perform its consideration, the case was closed and bade them good day and left the premises.

    As we left the court room, I heard the Magistrate say to someone whom I did not see, that he was being given a Liability Order......... We will keep you all posted with the next stage of the story!


    When pointing out that the Magistrate had failed the appointment, we were told that it was at the Magistrates “discretion” – THIS IS NOT TRUE! – An appointment has been given – it must be upheld otherwise, as in this case, the Magistrate is in dishonour from the get-go.

    Although Bright Young Thing of the council stated that he would not read the papers given him, and that they were of “no consequence” – THIS IS NOT TRUE – he had been duly and properly served which method is deemed “Good Service”. As with us, a council representative may tell you that the Demand With Menaces council tax bill has been “served” because they sign to say it has been posted! This method is NOT deemed good service for a number of points, in that two of these are, the letter is not sent Recorded Delivery, so they cannot PROVE you received it, (they “deem” that you have received it when they have posted it – a pure, out and out cost cutting exercise!), and there is no covering letter stating that the letter is deemed to have been served within the meaning of the Post Office Act 1978. By the anger and “orders” of three different court officials, the usher, the recorder and the Magistrate, it was obvious they had tried to obtain jurisdiction over us by getting us to stand where they instructed.......leaving the assumption that they were just plain arrogant or did in fact know where we were coming from!!

    According to the Judicial Studies Board (April 1970) – Fairness in Courts and Tribunals, and given the fact that the PERSON Angela Julie Day, THEN Julie of the family Day had been called then the Magistrate SHOULD and MUST ask – “Is Julie of the family Day present?”. The Magistrate never did this, in contravention of the above JSB. It was therefore HE who was wasting the court’s time and not us! It must also be a judicial travesty, that the Magistrates can adjourn the judicial process, to retire to “chambers” SPECIFICALLY with the intent of “looking in the book to see what charges could be levied at these people” !! It now remains to be seen, whether or not a Liability Order will actually be issued. If it is, then this action brings about many more avenues of enquiry and criminal complaints to be made against the council and particularly against the Magistrates.

    Regardless of the incident of the Chief Magistrate declaring that Julie Day was not present, this is clearly to be argued that she was, as the recorder had requested Julie of the family Day, to attend Court number three – and it was subsequently, clearly and concisely stated, that Julie of the family Day was present, representing as third party agent Angela Julie Day. Should the council then state that the order was granted in absentia – then they are guilty of perjury, corruption, interfering in due legal process and exceeding their authority of office.....which criminal complaint will be lodged at the local police station. Complaints would in that case also be made against the Magistrates, both at the police station and the High Court, the former a number of complaints including Impersonating a Magistrate, corruption, perjury, malfeasance of office, and the latter to the High Court, complaint requesting a Judicial Review and questioning the competency of the chief Magistrate involved.


    The whole process from start to finish is a complete fiasco, with council and judicial menacing, and threats throughout. It is quite apparent and conclusive that “those who would be king” make up the play as they go along. The recommendations are – to send off your affidavits, don your suit of armour, read up on the various Acts, extracts and Common Laws, or forever stay in their rope-a-dope system!

    With Best Regards, John of the family Hirst. (JAYDEE)

    Now the expenses spotlight falls on Britain's judiciary

    First-class train tickets, airfares and dining bills take annual claims by judges and magistrates to £32m . Expenses claims by judges and magistrates have risen by £3m in the last two years, according to figures obtained by The Independent under the Freedom of Information Act.

    First-class train tickets, air fares, hotels and dining bills are among the record £32m claims made by the judiciary this year. The figure includes compensation paid to judges who buy homes closer to the courts where they work, and nightly allowances of £32 when they choose to stay at their second homes. Under the claims for hotel accommodation, judges receive a maximum of £146 a night when they travel to London to hear a court case and £126 a night when they venture outside the capital. Sometimes judges have to spend weeks at a time on circuit when they can claim thousands of pounds in expenses.

    Under guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, salaried judges whose work requires them to move on a permanent basis to a different part of the country are entitled to claim "assistance" towards the additional costs of relocation. Compensation is paid for help with legal fees, stamp duty, estate agents and the cost of hiring a removal van. Under these rules reimbursement of up to £8,000 is exempt from tax and National Insurance contributions. Night subsistence payments are only payable where a judge is required to be away from his or her normal home on judicial business. And the more environmentally friendly judiciary can claim 20p for every mile travelled on a bicycle. The Ministry of Justice said it was unable to provide information on expenses claims for individual judges because this would cost too much money under the terms of Freedom of Information Act.

    An official explained: "The Ministry records judicial office holders' expenses claims in a way which does not enable them to be readily attributed to individuals or easily broken down according to the type of claim, beyond the category of 'judicial travel and subsistence'. This is because the systems of authorisation and control are regarded as sufficient for the purposes of ensuring propriety of expenditure." But the Lord Chief Justice said he was committed to publishing individual expense claims for the senior judiciary from next year. The expenses bill for the 3,679 fee-paid and salaried judges for this year was £3,676,333 – a rise of more than £500,000 in the last two years. There was a similar increase for those serving on tribunals. For the volunteer force of magistrates the increase is just over £2m in the same period.

    But judges lucky enough to be sent to a part of the country where there are stated-owned judicial lodgings can enjoy the services of chauffeurs, butlers and chefs. These 32 historic homes can cost as much as £2,000 a night and include penthouse flats and Georgian town houses. The cost of judges' lodgings are met by the general budget of the Ministry of Justice rather than the expenses scheme. A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: "Judges and magistrates can only claim expenses in limited circumstances, and this largely relates to travel and subsistence expenses incurred in the course of their judicial duties. There are 10,600 judicial office holders (including all fee-paid judges) and 30,000 magistrates.

    Travel by judges is part and parcel of keeping the courts and justice system working. There are rates for travel and subsistence, and – as with the civil service – payment follows the processing of receipts and claims by civil servants." He added: "The expenses claimed by both judges and tribunals judiciary decreased in 2008/09 from that paid out in 2007/08. Magistrates serve the community voluntarily and are not paid a salary, although they are able to claim travel, subsistence and financial loss allowances, which are limited to specific amounts."

    nwo satanists The biggest growing and menacing threat to men across the Western world is the rise of the judicial nazi's who have cleverly removed juries from almost all of the civil courts actions that see men, not part of their creepy satanic network, being screwed and psychologically tortured while consolidating the power and wealth removed in those courts into the hands of the masonic coffers .

    Weakened men and their families, right across the western world, who under any other circumstances would be the biggest defence against the fascists determined to break the power of good men and their strong families , end up on the street homeless and penniless. All of it thanks to a small self appointed elite legal mafia of masonic judges used to arm the chosen few who guard the masonic paymasters like the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers using laws and its bully boy judges to reinforce their global banking networks and the monarchy's hierarchy of thugs who can crush any dissent with impunity.

    This is a centuries old system of control only now being decoded across the internet with the key players unable to stem the tide of information that shows the same scams being used time and again to prop up this evil network of power and control. The enslavement of the many by the few using blackmail and sworn oaths of secrecy is most noticeable in the courts that are used to redistribute men's hard earned wealth into this satanic network and the establishment who behind the scenes control most of the worlds wealth while they leave the rest of us as minnows to fight for the crumbs that are left.

    We repeat that more than 90% of the worlds wealth is owned by less than 10% of the earths population and their growing dynasties require ever more greed to keep them in the lifestyles they think they deserve. Hence the need to further squeeze economies we depend on to survive to provide the lavish lifestyles of the few families pulling the banking strings behind the scenes. The British and American governments goffer political lackeys bending over backwards to give the banks billions in hand outs when their illusionary credit crunch provides a smokescreen for these mobsters to justify being baled out with the public's money.

    The banking dynasties have made themselves indispensable using modern technology to provide, in many cases, the only way to pay for goods and services using credit cards and money that is WORTHLESS and for many years has never been backed up by anything of value. Banks creating money out of thin air in a cycle of boom and bust that sees them consolidate ever more repossessed estates into their bulging pockets while the rest of us can only sit back and watch breathless with the ease this banking mafia can reduce us all to a pittance when their judicial lackeys sign the court orders to take away our lifes work. Men have seen this in family courts for many years and only waking up to the enormous assault on non mason men by judicial thugs who act first and foremost for their grand master scammers in lodges across the globe.

    The light is now being shown on the enormity of the plundering of our wealth while we are side tracked by a complicit media who rant on about a terrorist threat from overseas. This has been a great smokescreen for the masonic crooks who are charged with far more destruction of our families assets and well being than any outside threat. The dissemination of their propaganda is a major part in exposing and countering the destruction of men physically and mentally using the most evil psychological threats from within the civil court systems across the western world by their masonic judicial thugs .

    Jack Straw's recent announcement that new judges in England and Wales no longer have to inform the government if they are members of a masonic lodge sends out a strong signal that masonic judges are the major criteria in ensuring the UK's establishment class system headed by the crown and monarchy remains intact . Our courts have been high jacked and juries removed to ensure the stolen wealth and power by the few remains in the hands of the few thanks to their satanic masonic control network.
    BUT ONLY IF WE ALLOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Potential judges will not have to declare if they are Freemasons
    masonic court The Justice secretary Zionist Jack Straw announced yesterday that judges in England and Wales, who had to previously declare if they were masons no longer require that declaration.This is as a direct challenge by the United Grand Lodge of England who threatened him with taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.

    We have been concerned for many years that the ECHR conventions are being undermined by JUDGES, not juries, deciding on matters relating to the UK's draconian and menacing judicial mafia.

    Judges sitting in the ECHR courts may very well be undermining the very nature of human rights by also being members of secret societies and that their perspective of HUMAN RIGHTS relates only to those affecting their brothers and the rest of the population can continue to be ruthlessly destroyed by the powers these masonic judges within the UK have stealthily given themselves. We know British judges are NOT intimidated by threats of victims taking their case to Europe. NO JUDGE has the jurisdiction in any case when either party requests a jury , particularly in civil actions when vast estates are being seized by masonic judges in draconian decisions that they should NEVER have been allowed to take.

    Our courts have been high jacked by judicial masons, as proven by the United Grand Lodges continued threats, as it is the power of MASONS that has been proven time and again to be in the hands of the judges that sit in judgement in cases across the United Kingdom and across the globe. This ensures their ultra rich hierarchy can continue the class system that has seen the massive disparity between the rich and poor. Courts and its judicial hierarchy of masonic judges are the main criteria in keeping us all in our lowly place and court powers will ensure our assets are seized if at any time we become a threat to the thugs now running the UK for their own financial gain.

    The growing dissent among British victims, their families and friends and also the wider population cannot be stifled any longer by these thugs and bully boys who have been getting increasingly away with murder in how these courts operate. Even a recent comment by the chairman of the Bar Standards Board Lady Deech were she stated "another example of a law imposed on us by the judiciary, without any reference to Parliament" in that family courts are being abused by judges, many if not all masons, who have been for centuries using them as a means for the state to fleece the victims who cannot get juries . Instead making decisions on a lifetime of work invested in assets and homes that are seized using court orders that are wholly illegal and then railroaded through by corrupt judges and lawyers. Later those stolen assets and homes being made available to masons to buy up at vastly reduced cost and one of the incentives they use to sell their soul to a satanic order that brainwashes and blackmails its members who ruthlessly attack anyone who dares challenge their power and money grabbing scams.

    Jack Straw has laid down the gauntlet to the millions of victims of these thugs who will continue their reign of terror unless they are stopped . Everyone should avoid at all costs using courts as a means to settle disputes as JUSTICE is non-existent while theft of property is rife by that legal mafia . Marriage ,once a religious preserve is now a meal ticket for the masons who are building their power and wealth using judges to redistribute OUR assets into their hands and living opulent lifestyles on the backs of draconian powers within those courts. Their victims have collated evidence over many years for anyone as yet to face these monsters who remain the biggest threat by far in the UK, despite all the corporate media spin on terror threats from outside the UK.

    The amount of lives lost through terrorism(their smokescreen) pales next to the vast army of victims who have been psychologically tortured, abused, bullied and destroyed by this evil network that Straw has bowed to their demands and threats .That we will continue to EXPOSE and take whatever measures are needed to oppose the impact this decision is having on our rights and freedoms. There is no doubt that the more ruthless these evil barstewards become the more the vast majority of the population will resist when they are faced with ever more victims coming forward and telling how their lives have been destroyed by these mobsters. THAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT WIN THIS WAR AGAINST OUR FAMILIES.

  • Potential judges will not have to declare if they are Freemasons
    judge Judges will no longer have to declare being a Freemason after Jack Straw scrapped a 11-year-rule he introduced – amid fears he would lose a human rights battle.

    Since 1998 those becoming judges or magistrates have been required to say if they are a Mason after the then Home Secretary – Mr Straw – said membership of "secret societies such as freemasonry" could raise suspicions of impartiality and objectivity. But, now Justice Secretary, Mr Straw has abandoned the requirement after the United Grand Lodge of England threatened legal action following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

    In 2007, the court ruled in favour of Italian Masons that making an official declare their membership breached their rights to free association and was discriminatory. Mr Straw yesterday said a review had shown no evidence of "impropriety or malpractice" as a result of a judge being a Freemason and that it would be "disproportionate" to continue with the practice.

    The move sparked a furious backlash in 1998 and attempts to make a similar requirement for police officers was dropped in favour of voluntary declarations. John Hamill, spokesman for the United Grand Union, said: "We are very happy the right thing has been done at long last."

  • Potential judges will not have to declare if they are Freemasons
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that almost all juvenile delinquency cases heard by an indicted former judge must be thrown out. The ruling means cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella from Jan. 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 are in question for fairness and impartiality.

    Young kids sent away for minor offenses by corrupt Pa. judge.

    Ciavarella faces criminal charges that accuse him of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes. In one reported case, a college-bound high school student served three weeks in juvenile detention for making fun of the school principal on a Web site. The court said that it "cannot have any confidence that Ciavarella decided any Luzerne County juvenile case fairly and impartially while he labored under the specter of his self-interested dealings with the facilities," and called Ciavarella's actions a "travesty of juvenile justice."

    The decision could impact up to 6,500 Pennsylvania youth, whose juvenile detention records will now be erased and their cases dismissed without the possibility of retrial. Most of the affected youth have already served their time. In Pennsylvania, juvenile criminal records are not automatically expunged when children turn 18, so Thursday's ruling could give thousands of kids a clean slate, said Marsha Levick, deputy director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia and an attorney for the children. About 100 Pennsylvania children could now be released from juvenile detention or taken off of probation, according to Levick. "The court's far-reaching order is an exceptional response to the most serious judicial scandal in the history of the United States," Levick told ABC News.

    The ruling is the latest stunning development in a story of corruption that first shocked Luzerne County residents in January 2009. Federal prosecutors announced that respected county judges Ciavarella and Michael Conahan had pleaded guilty to tax evasion and honest services fraud. However, their plea deal and relatively light sentence were later rejected by a federal judge who ruled that Ciavarella and Conahan had failed to accept responsibility for their crimes. In fact, Ciavarella had previously told "20/20" that "we would never agree that [the kids' sentencing] was improper." Now, the two former judges face much more serious federal racketeering, bribery, and extortion charges. All of this is the result of a lengthy investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. Ciavarella and Conahan have pleaded not guilty.

    "They sold their oath of offices to the highest bidders and engaged in ongoing schemes to defraud the public of honest services that were expected from them," Deron Roberts, chief of the FBI's Scranton office, said at a late January news conference announcing the case. The judges' arrests shed light on a mystery in Luzerne County: Why were so many kids getting sent directly to juvenile detention after seeing Ciavarella in his Wilkes-Barre juvenile court? And why were those kids sent away in such a rush?

    supreme court

    This is the imposing interior of Britain’s new Supreme Court which opens on October 5 – separating the judicial and legislative roles of the House of Lords for the first time in more than 600 years. About £36million has been spent converting the Grade II* listed Middlesex Guildhall into three courtrooms where 12 justices, formerly Law Lords, will sit daily.

    The limestone ‘art nouveau gothic’ building in Parliament Square, built in 1913, was originally the home of Middlesex County Council as well as being a court. It was designed by Scottish architect James Gibson with ornate gargoyles, carved angels and friezes by sculptor Henry Fehr. Fehr also designed most of the original furniture, with Wylie and Lochhead of Glasgow.

    usa judges The Fixer: No Lawsuits or Proceedings are Won Until You Have Found the Person Who Pays the Judge

    Disbarred attorney Teddy Moore tells America in his book why judges never look at the facts of a case. all proceedings are pre-determined according to the "fixer" - the person who gets the settlement/judgement to pay the judge for his/her services.

    The FIXER by Teddy Moore

    This is a tell all book about the unimaginable; the US people have never been exposed in a movie or a book, to a corrupt judge, certainly not a corrupt judiciary. The reality is beyond any fiction or stretch of the imagination or dream, that those who dispense Justice in USA, the Judiciary, are the real culprits and the ordinary- criminals and the rest of us, are just victims of the Judiciary. This is the reality, which is more bizarre than any fiction. The supporting evidence to prove this reality comes from the Internet, which has a short history of about a decade, and without it, the real criminals would have probably gotten away with this untold story. Still the people do not get it yet . In his book “Constitutional chaos” Judge Andrew Napolitano tries to tell us everything, about several instances of injustice committed by the government. Unfortunately, by telling us so much about each injustice, we ultimately know everything about nothing. Judge Napolitano describes a tree here and a tree there but he fails to tell us the story of the forest, and why it has grown wild . In “Men in Black”, Author Mark Levin also tried to describe America’s wild judicial jungle, Mr. Levin tells us that judges are not God, but he fails to tell us who they are. He toys with the question of whether or not we can trust the courts but at the end he is not quite sure. He reviews a number of Supreme Court decisions and he tells us that he doesn’t like some of them, but so what?

    The problem is that even those judges and authors who expose defects in the alleged “The best legal system in the world” will only describe those defects as aberrations and abnormalities. They will not tell you that under the current system, justice is the exception not the rule. They will not tell you that the judiciary is responsible for the wild injustice in USA.They will not tell you that the entire system is corrupt. It means that if you are innocent you might go to jail and vice versa, it means that you may lose your home, your children, everything you have by a whim of the real criminals for no good reason, except that the criminals need your property and your life to make a bigger buck for themselves. If you ask American attorneys about the judiciary, they’ll tell you that the system is “Not perfect” This admission is actually a great compliment to a system, which is fundamentally broken and corrupt. Unfortunately, this is the only criticism that licensed attorneys are allowed to make about this allegedly great system (Do Attorneys have a right of free speech? Yes, if they freely praise judicial corruption as if it is a gift from God.)

    Unlike other books that criticize the American judicial process, ‘The Fixer’, will show you how the system really works, why it cannot make a right decision and why justice in the system is so rare. ‘The Fixer’ will show you that the legal system in USA is operated by two parties, one who is a fixer-attorney and the other is an extortable-attorney, appearing before a presiding Judge, who makes knowingly unjust decisions in favor of the attorney fixer , and any appeals on those atrocities are approved by the court of appeals, all the time (99.99%) This is the broken mechanism of justice . The American balance of justice is broken, the judiciary does not weigh anymore anything on the scale of justice, they just abuse their power to make a fast buck on it .

    In a tribal society in Africa the chief of the tribe hears evidence and dispense justice based on the facts, that he has learned from the witnesses, and there is no appeal on his decision. This “primitive” form of justice is far better than what the corrupt US Judiciary has to offer, the tribal Judge need not the fixer and the extortable, the litigants appear pro se and the outcome can not be worse then in the alleged “Best legal system in the world”, because the alleged best system in the world, is just best in corruption and in concealing the facts of the extreme corruption. It is just a racket of extortion to make a quick buck. The Bar or judiciary won’t endorse, ‘The Fixer’ because this book probes beneath the judicial façade, to expose the lies and endemic corruption which provide the American judicial system it’s real foundation. ‘The Fixer’ will show you why neither congress nor the constitution can control the judiciary, and why the media will not tell you about it...


    The extortionate (Extortable) attorney is a unique creation of the US legal system. An attorney is a crucial part of the process providing justice in the western world, because he is trained in and supposed to know the law and should be able present it properly to the judiciary. However, in USA the judiciary, admits attorneys to practice law, and discipline attorneys, as a result American attorneys fear the judiciary, and are therefore trapped in a built –in conflict of interest between the duty to represent properly their client in court, and on the other hand the fear of summary retalitation, sanctions, disbarment and even summarily jail for just doing their faithful job for their client. The American judiciary has extreme abusive power against attorneys, and in many cases they abuse even the abuse of power against attorney, which caused the untenable situation where an attorney who is paid well to bring his client’s case to the judiciary, is silenced by a powerful and corrupt judge who frustrate his job. (Some of these corrupt judges call themselves “justices of the court”) These corrupt judges coerce attorneys to give up their client’s case to the attorney of the party opponent, this extortion is called in US courts “Settlement”,” Stipulation” etc., no matter what they call it ‘The Fixer’ will show you that it is just an industry of injustice to make a quick buck of it.

    ‘The Fixer’ will expose to you an industry of judgments in exchange for bribes, organized by judges and executed by their close confidants, the attorney fixer, who can extort easily the party opponent and his attorney by threatening him with the pending judicial abuse of power, which cause the closure of cases in favor of the attorney fixer without any evidentiary hearing at all. When an attorney can not present to a judge, without fear, his client’s case, in such system by definition you can not get justice, because the judiciary do not know the facts and sometimes the law, and some believe that the judiciary do not want to know the law and facts. So what’s going on here? Why is it legal in America to pay an attorney fees for misrepresentation of his client? The simple answer is that it is part of the show. This is a simple act of consumer fraud that was institutionalized. Does this happen in the western world?

    Well, in England attorneys are independent of the judiciary, judges cannot discipline them, they are not admitted to practice law by the judiciary, English attorneys are independent from the judiciary, they care in court for their clients only and are not concerned with themselves. They are admitted by attorneys and disciplined by attorney, and so have the respect of the judiciary and their clients. In USA an attorney may be disbarred, bankrupt, and on the way to jail by any judge within ten minutes, when the judge acts, as complainant, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner brings his pretexts, allegations (Charges) against the attorney and execute him. This kind of action is possible only in a military regime, or in a nazi type regime.

    The most popular terrorist- acts against American attorneys by US judiciary is a charge by the Judge that the attorney raises frivolous allegations or behaves in a frivolous manner . This is the prelude for any and every judge to impose, severe penalties, for each and every such alleged misconduct, which may cause the bankruptcy of the attorney. (When judges are on the prowl for more money, there is no point, to tell them about first amendment rights of free speech, or tell them about the attorney’s duty to his client.) Another act of coercion, by the judiciary, against an attorney may be a simple declaration on record, that the judge had enough with this attorney and do not desire to see anymore this attorney in his courtroom. If this is drafted as an order of the court, the appellate division will disbar the attorney from practicing law by “Reciprocal discipline” and no appeal by the victimized attorney will be successful, to save the attorney from this terrorist act. A judge may summarily imprison an attorney for contempt of court...