judge beatrice bolton What it's like living next to an arrogant obnoxious judge who is the 'Neighbour from hell'

A judge has been arrested and had her dogs seized by police after a third alleged attack in a year.

Judge Beatrice Bolton, 57, was questioned and later bailed following an incident near her home on the outskirts of Rothbury, Northumberland, last week. She has not sat at Newcastle Crown Court since December when she was convicted of failing to control her German shepherd Georgina and stormed out of Carlisle Magistrates' Court branding the decision a "f****** travesty". She was fined £2,500 after Georgina attacked her neighbours' 20-year-old son, who was sunbathing in the garden which their two properties shared on May 31 last year. Then the Royal Mail suspended deliveries to her home and neighbouring properties in April after postman Kenneth Auld said he was bitten. Judge Bolton was investigated and the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether to bring charges.

Last Wednesday, a 22-year-old man reported being bitten in the leg in the Whitton Bank area of Rothbury, where the judge lives. Police arrested the judge the same day and took her two German shepherds "to assure public safety". A Northumbria Police spokeswoman said: "Inquiries are ongoing and police have arrested a 57-year-old woman in connection with the incident. She has since been bailed. Police have taken action to assure public safety and these dogs have been removed." Judge Bolton was once on good terms with her neighbours David and Anne Malia, but the two parties fell out over their shared gardens. The neighbours complained last week after the judge split the gardens by putting up a fence without planning permission. She will be allowed to keep the fence up for two years to allow a hedge to grow in.

  • 'It's a f****** travesty!' Woman judge's foul-mouthed outburst after she is fined for attack by her Alsatian
    The satanic network of masonic judges stealing children and placing them into care and into the hands of the abusers working for the state should have started a bloody war. How long before men en masse rise up and remove these evil bastards, who are the utter scum and dregs of the earth , from destroying any more young lives? They have masonic cop gun arsenals at their disposal while the families they destroy have been left defenseless from political chicanery after Dunblane that took the guns that might have been used as defence against a judicial tyranny and a state mafia who have been getting away with MURDER for far to long.

    How UK judges deny human rights to children taken into care

    The right to family life - invoked to get a burglar out of prison, or a celebrity granted a super-injunction - is denied to many children.

    At half past 10 one night, the week before last, several cars drew up outside a family home “somewhere in southern England”. A 12-year-old girl was asleep in bed upstairs. Earlier in the day, she had been fetched home from school because she was ill. Also in the house were her disabled father and her two brothers, in their twenties. One of them, I am told, recorded the events on video as the house filled with eight policemen, helping two social workers to drag the girl to a car. She was crying and protesting, “What have I done wrong?” She had grabbed her mobile phone, but it was confiscated from her as she was handed over to a council foster-carer. Being a resourceful girl, she managed to smuggle two handwritten notes to her family over the next few days, saying that she was constantly crying at being “taken from my dad and my brothers, the only family I know and I love since I was born”. “I feel like I get punished for something I haven’t done, as I feel they are treating me like a prisoner.” She also briefly managed to get to a phone, to claim – her remarks were recorded – that she had been hit by her African foster-carer (the girl is white).

    What made this truly bizarre was that it had never been alleged that the girl was in any danger at home. Social workers had only become involved with the family when she was maltreated by her mother, who left the house two years ago. Since then, social workers have maintained contact to confirm that she was being well cared for. They repeatedly told her, in her own words, that “my dad was a good dad, that my brothers looked after me properly and that I was not going to be removed from my family”. Only a few days before she was snatched, the family had agreed to a care plan whereby the social workers would continue to keep an eye on her while she remained at home. But everything suddenly seemed to change after the father sent a confidential note to one of the social workers, making comments critical of the judge in the case. The note was apparently shown to the judge, and the following day the child was seized.

    We have heard much recently, from judges and others, about human rights, notably Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, guaranteeing the right to privacy and to enjoy family life – free not least from interference by the state. It was under this right, for instance, that one judge released a burglar from prison to look after his family, while others granted super-injunctions to celebrities caught out in sexual misbehaviour. The great black hole at the centre of the edifice of humbug built around Article 8 is the quite astonishing way in which judges and others involved in our peculiar “family protection” system too often manage wholly to disregard the human rights of children. No one can object where agents of the state intervene when children are genuinely in danger. But children may be snatched, far too readily, from loving homes, to be imprisoned in a “care system” where they are not only miserable and confused but are too often truly abused. The taking of children into care has soared in recent months to record levels. Meanwhile, ChildLine reports that the numbers – in their thousands – who annually complain of abuse in local authority care has risen in recent years by 32 per cent. In the dozens of cases I have been following, it is a story I have heard again and again.

    The way such children are treated makes a mockery not just of the 1989 Children Act, which states that the interests of the child must be paramount, but also of the Human Rights Act. If the story told by this girl is as true as the evidence that I have seen and heard suggests it is, it might be argued that her rights have been infringed not just under Article 8, but Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 as well. She ends one of her heart-rending letters pleading to be “represented in court by a solicitor of my choice”. “I strongly wish for the judge to respect my human rights, and to be present in court [for him] to hear my wishes.” But will the judge who placed her in this plight allow her that right (as enshrined in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)? And should this man alone have the right to decide whether her rights are to be respected?

    As we have been exposing for many many years, and the mass media now catching up, the biggest terrorists across the planet are an unelected, unaccountable judiciary. Hand picked by the Royal mafia to fleece the long suffering British public out of billions in land, business and property but especially children. Only juries can restore justice to their corrupt and fanciful 'Rule of law'.

    MPs and the judiciary: Judging the judges

    In the crude calculus of who is up and who is down, judges are scoring better than MPs these days. Not surprisingly, MPs are resentful. The customarily robust assertion from the former home secretary Michael Howard that "the power of the judges, as opposed to the power of elected politicians, has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished" resonates with all political parties. The judges' defence, that they do no more than interpret the law as parliament has made it, is true, though not the whole story.

    Politicians are wrong to moan that judicial decisions threaten the sovereignty of parliament, even when – as the court of appeal did last Friday in the Shoesmith ruling – upholding the rule of law checks governmental action. But it is also true that judges make choices, and unless MPs subsequently change the law, those choices determine what the law is. The set of standoffs between the legislators and what used to be called the least-dangerous branch of government are triggering fresh attacks on the independence of judges, based on the argument that "political" law-making demands political accountability. This is particularly challenging for the supreme court, which briefly appeared on a list of redundant quangos last year. Relations between government and the judges are mostly mutually respectful, but it is not hard to see how they could erode. What might be done to prevent such a situation?

    One way the legal profession could pre-empt sometimes justifiable public criticism is by greater transparency about who sits in the supreme court. Some MPs are calling for US-style hearings where the quality, legal thinking and broader sympathies of candidates can be tested. Confirmatory hearings of other senior public appointments, like the governor of the Bank of England, have proved valuable. But many who are demanding greater accountability for judges dream of a judiciary that reflects the moral bearings of the Daily Mail.

    The problem is not that our judges are or should be partisan. Nor would anyone question the intellectual merit of the 12 supreme court justices. But in spite of some good intentions to diversify the bench, the 12 are all white, male (with the exception of Baroness Hale)(masons) and middle class. Some of this is hard to change, but this is a body that, in its own words, shapes our society and directly affects our lives, a body that unavoidably takes decisions that raise questions of social values. The court is in a weaker position than it could be to see off attempts to undermine its legitimacy. A broader approach to appointments would help do the job better.

    It is common for judges to lament the supreme court's lack of diversity and at the same time to insist candidates can only be chosen from the ranks of the most senior judges. Yet it was disappointing that when, in March, an appointment was finally made from outside the appeal court for the first time, it went to Jonathan Sumption QC – an undeniably brainy barrister, but as white, male and middle class as the rest, and thus hardly an inspiration to less orthodox candidates. From the bottom rung of the judiciary to the top, only a fifth of judges are women, and less than a 20th come from black and minority ethnic groups; in the high court and court of appeal – the gene pool for the supreme court – just 20 of 153 judges are women.

    The judges are allowed to consider diversity when appointments are made. Yet they do not appear willing enough to rise to the challenge of venturing beyond the tried and tested. It should be possible, once the high standard of merit is passed, to find candidates from more diverse backgrounds. It would be desirable to set targets as milestones against which progress could be judged. Otherwise the senior courts risk fulfilling the gloomy prediction of a former attorney general, and becoming a self-appointing oligarchy – and thus ultimately one that is less able to challenge parliament and defend itself effectively against parliamentary retribution.

    The Judge in the inquest into Princess Diana's murder had a conflict of interest. He had sworn an oath to the Queen; yet the royal family was the primary suspect.

    By Debra Siddons (henrymakow.com)

    Fourteen years after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, many still believe she was murdered. The recently released documentary film, "Unlawful Killing" revisits evidence put forth in the 2007-2008 Coroner's Inquest by Mohamed Al-Fayed. The film has been billed by its director Keith Allen as an "inquest into the inquest." It launches a "full-frontal attack on the British establishment", and "in particular the 'royal' justice system and the monarchy who Fayed believes was behind the fatal crash in a Paris road tunnel" according to The Independent. Mohamed Al-Fayed, father of Diana's boyfriend Dodi who also died in the car crash, invested £2.5 million for the making of "Unlawful Killing" to keep this case alive for a complacent public. For the government-controlled mainstream media, that makes the film a "conspiracy theory." But what dad would give up on seeking justice for the death of his son and future daughter-in-law, who reportedly was carrying his grandchild?


    Diana said in the BBC interview that the Royal family viewed her as a loose cannon and rebel. Diana openly said she would not be silenced and would continue her public campaign for the banning of land-mines. In a handwritten note to her butler and confidant Paul Burrell, Diana predicted her own death stating that certain members of the Royal family were "planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him (Charles) to marry". Al-Fayed said "Diana told me personally during a holiday in the South of France, If anything happens to me, make sure those people are exposed. The person who is spearheading these threats is Prince Philip."

    Prince Philip is a man known for dark, though revealing statements such as, in 1988, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." In his preface to "Down to Earth," Prince Philip stated "I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history," and continued "but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the 'cull' to the size of the surplus population."


    Diana was a nightmare for the 'Monarchy' that kept getting worse. Could the head of the Church of England allow the future king to be the stepson of an Arab Muslim, especially one whose dad had longstanding enemies in parliament? Diana was exposing high ranking public figures for profiting from landmines, etc., operations run by MI6. Could the military establishment and secret intelligence services allow this to continue? "Diana's anti-landmines activity was a possible motive for murder that was almost completely ignored by the 832-page Paget Report, produced by Lord Stevens in December 2006." - Anti-Landmines Campaign After 6 months of listening to testimony in the 2007-2008 Coroner's Inquest in Britain's High Court, Judge Scott Baker told the jury that he was withdrawing the option of murder as a verdict. This is a complete perversion of justice. The judge is supposed to be a neutral party and should NEVER say or do anything that would influence the jury or the outcome of the case.

    "On the morning of 31 March, he stated: "My direction in law to you is that it is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident" (13.25, 14.1-2). Baker went on to explain: "When a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist" (14.11-15)." - Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict In fact, Judge Baker did not allow certain evidence to be presented. There is a legal maxim that states that no man can judge in his own cause or in a cause that he is a party to.

    Since every judge has sworn an oath to the queen and derives their authority from her, a matter involving the Royal family or questioning the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of the queen could only be impartially and lawfully decided by a jury. How then can one of "her majesty's" judges make an impartial ruling in "her majesty's court in a matter implicating a member of the Royal family? For The Law to be justly and fairly applied, everyone must be subject to it, up to and including the queen who swore on The Bible to do her utmost to maintain The Law of God.


    My article entitled, "Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System", reveals that the "invisible power" behind the so-called Royal family is in fact based on a massive deception that could be exposed using a remarkably simple and bullet-proof defense. This completely Lawful defense was recently introduced at the start of the trial of John Anthony Hill where a corrupt judge ignored it because if he hadn't, it would have dismantled the entire corrupt system from the top down. The more people that learn about this defense, and the more support that grows at the grass-roots level, the more difficult it will be for judges to ignore. The press had no choice but to cover the Birkenhead Court story, where 600 people went to arrest a judge, because of the level of support. Hopefully those of you who believe Diana and Dodi were murdered will study and help implement this defense so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

    Once the corrupt system is dismantled, a real public inquest into the death of Diana could take place where all of the available and unfiltered evidence would be presented to a jury, instead of one of "her majesty's" gate-keepers barring justice at the door. A peaceful revolution for the truth made possible by the perfect defense...if we act now. The Defense is explained in the video here. Queen Elizabeth did not keep her oath to enforce the laws of God; and she was improperly crowned. The United Kingdom could again be the envy of and example for the world. But it will require determination from all of us to unite in the pursuit of truth and justice for all, under God's Perfect Royal Laws of Liberty.

    May God Bless His United Kingdom on Earth.

    judicial mafia Judges are unelected, out of touch and shockingly arrogant

    As the Committee on super-injunctions was composed entirely of judges and lawyers, we should not be very surprised that its conclusions are so inadequate and do little or nothing to lift the veil of secrecy from public life. This is a small ‘c’ conservative report by people who essentially want to keep things as they are. Indeed, two of the committee represent law firms – Carter Ruck and Schillings – which in recent years have been at the forefront of moves for ever greater secrecy.

    It is a bit like asking two notorious sharpshooters to sit on a committee discussing the use of firearms in the Wild West. What is absent from the report is the remotest glimmer of an admission that judges have gone too far – and very fast – in developing a privacy law on the basis of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. The discussion is essentially all about ways and means of enforcing a law of privacy which has never been properly debated in Parliament. In short, it is all about procedure.

    Here it is conceded that super-injunctions – draconian orders against publication whose very existence cannot be mentioned – were once granted ‘far too often’, though no heartfelt apology is forthcoming. According to the committee, which was chaired by Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, only two super-injunctions have been issued since January 2010, out of around 80 handed out since 2005. Even judges, it seems, realised they were more trouble than they were worth.

    The device they now favour is the ‘anonymity order’, which to the innocent bystander does not look very different from a super-injunction. Names of claimants are protected, sometimes leading to misplaced speculation about the identities of celebrities, as recently happened in the cases of Gabby Logan and Jemima Khan, who were wrongly ‘outed’ on the internet for discreditable things they had not done. Anonymity orders scarcely offer more open justice than super-injunctions, and the report does not suggest they will be used less frequently.

    The committee presumably believed that the media will be grateful for the suggestion that, where possible, journalists should be allowed into court when applications for privacy injunctions are being made, even though they may not be able to report them. Some concession! This is all about the nuts and bolts of enforcing secrecy, not about the issue itself. There is, however, one sphere in which the report foresees tighter rules than exist at present.

    It suggests that media reports of comments made in Parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court. It is a well-established principle of our constitution that Parliament is sovereign. And yet the report says that reports in the Commons are protected by parliamentary privilege only if they are published ‘in good faith and without malice’. Who is to be the arbiter of that? Why, judges, of course.

    On Thursday, Lord Stoneham, a Lib Dem peer, revealed in the House of Lords that, while he was chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin had an extra-marital affair with a senior colleague which could have affected his judgment as the bank collapsed at a cost of billions of pounds to British taxpayers. Despite the obvious public interest in knowing how and when and why Sir Fred may have had his eye off the ball, he had originally been granted a super-injunction, which meant that the media could report nothing whatsoever. It was the Lib Dem MP John Hemming who first revealed that Sir Fred had been granted such an order, and on Thursday his colleague Lord Stoneham supplied the explanation.

    Who was defending the public interest in this case – the judiciary or parliamentarians? In my view, it was outrageous that Sir Fred Goodwin should have been given protection by a judge. This is secret justice at its most pernicious. By contrast, John Hemming and Lord Stoneham are heroic figures. And yet, if Lord Neuberger and his colleagues have their way, journalists publishing the words of such parliamentarians could be prosecuted if they are judged not to have acted ‘in good faith and without malice’.

    This is a preposterous infringement of both parliamentary sovereignty and freedom of expression, which illustrates an alarming arrogance on the part of the higher judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, is intending to hold talks with the speakers of the Commons and Lords on this matter. I hope they send him away with a flea in his ear. One further example of judicial overkill is the report’s suggestion that any journalist made aware of the identity of a claimant in a privacy case should be identified in writing to the court.

    If that journalist were to disclose any details of the injunction to a third party, he or she would be guilty of contempt of court, and face possible imprisonment. So would a third party passing on this information. In other words, this report defends the right of judges to enforce privacy orders even to the extent of threatening parliamentarians and journalists. (However, it does not grapple with the near impossible task of policing the internet.) Nowhere does the report ask whether judges should be developing a privacy law with such vigour on the basis of Article Eight. Why should we have a privacy law interpreted in this way?

    Lawyers reasonably say that Parliament originally passed the Human Rights Act, along with Article Eight, but almost no one envisaged the way in which judges would chose to develop this law, or the speed.


    Judges and a dark day for open justice

    Yesterday, Britain’s most senior judges had the opportunity to curb the inexorable rise of the rich man’s privacy injunction and take a stand for the treasured principle of open justice. The long-awaited publication of the report by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, did neither: instead, it delivered a chilling exercise in judicial activism, self-delusion and – most worrying – a constitutional attack on Parliamentary sovereignty and free speech. Strikingly, given how readily our unelected judiciary has created a back-door privacy law, the report seeks to absolve the courts of any blame for the fact that barely a week passes without a celebrity with a carefully-cultivated family image winning a secrecy order to hide his adulterous behaviour.

    Instead, the judges disingenuously contend they were only implementing Labour’s insidious Human Rights Act. Yes, the legislation enshrined the right to privacy into British law. But, equally, the Act establishes the right to ‘freedom of expression’. It was left to judges to decide where the balance between these two competing interests should lie. And, overwhelmingly, they have ruled the right to privacy enjoyed by extremely wealthy philanderers desperate to protect their commercial contracts should trump free expression and the public interest in exposing hypocrisy and wrongdoing.

    If any proof were needed, look no further than the judiciary’s appalling stance over ex-RBS chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin( Zionist mason). At the very least, the fact he was having an affair with a senior colleague raises legitimate questions about whether his mind was elsewhere while RBS was spinning towards disaster. Yet, had a Lib Dem peer not used parliamentary privilege to break the injunction granted to Sir Fred, taxpayers who bailed out RBS to the tune of £45billion would have been kept in the dark.

    That is why Lord Neuberger’s proposal to gag MPs and peers who wish to break an injunction in the Commons or the Lords is so disturbing. For, with an arrogant disregard for the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary, senior judges intend to lecture the Speakers in both houses on what is or is not an acceptable topic for discussion. The judges are not only seeking to bully our elected representatives – they are challenging one of the very cornerstones of democracy: the 170-year-old right of MPs and peers to speak without the threat of legal interference.

    Meanwhile newspapers and broadcasters could be threatened with contempt of court proceedings if they report speeches made in Parliament which do breach the terms of a privacy injunction – driving a coach and horses through the principle of open political debate in this country. Lord Neuberger’s report did at least concede that too many injunctions have been issued in recent times. But it ducked any meaningful attempt to reduce their number, or end the farce of the mainstream media being barred from reporting information which is in open circulation on Twitter and the internet.

    Thus, we can today report that a Premiership footballer is suing Twitter for revealing details of an affair he had with a Big Brother contestant, but still can’t say who he is – even though his identity is known the world over.

  • Judges are unelected, out of touch and shockingly arrogant(media finally catch up with the internet)

    A TOP judge who stood down after claims he had a fling with a rent boy has applied to rejoin the legal profession as a barrister, we can reveal.

    Married father-of-two Gerald Price QC resigned from the judiciary last summer following claims of a nine-month relationship with a 26-year-old man he met through an escort website. He was reported in a newspaper in 2009 to have allowed Christopher Williams to sit next to him on the court bench and resigned after an official inquiry found he had brought the judiciary into disrepute. According to the News of the World, Mr Price – who presided over hundreds of trials in Cardiff, Swansea and Carmarthen Crown Courts in his nine-year career as a judge – set Mr Williams up in a flat in Swansea and paid him £420 a month for what was described as a “sex season ticket”.

    After the claims became public Price, 61, was suspended while the Office for Judicial Complaints and then a review body panel began a nine-month investigation. He resigned before the review body panel upheld an original decision that he should be removed from office. However, it has now emerged the former judge has been given a licence to practice as a barrister by the Bar Council.

    The decision is now being considered by the Bar Standards Board, the barristers’ regulatory body. Rachel Podolak, communications manager at the Bar Standards Board, said: “Following his resignation from the circuit bench on June 30, 2010, Gerald Price QC applied to the Bar Council, as the approved regulator of the bar, for a practising certificate to enable him to resume his practice at the bar. “There is nothing in the practising certificate regulations annexed to the bar’s code of conduct which either prevents a former judge from applying for a practising certificate or permits the Bar Council to refuse to issue one to a former member of the judiciary. “A practising certificate was therefore granted from January 1, 2011.

    “The Bar Standards Board, the independent regulator of the Bar, is aware of the circumstances which led to the resignation of the judge from office and of the decision to issue a practising certificate and is considering the matter. “No further action can be taken at this time.”

    Toby Craig, head of communications at the Bar Council, said: “There is nothing which we can meaningfully add to that statement.” A member of the legal profession in South Wales, who asked not to be named, said: “It is highly unusual for a judge to go ‘back into the ranks’, as it were. “But it must be remembered he was good enough as a barrister to become a judge and he has not broken any laws.”

    The former judge, an anglican lay preacher since 1969 and a former Tory parliamentary candidate, has two children with his wife, Theresa. He is believed to divide his time between homes in Cardiff Bay, Cowbridge and Carmarthen. When Mr Price resigned last year, the Office for Judicial Complaints said: “Gerald Price QC, a circuit judge who was appointed to the Wales circuit in 2000, has resigned from judicial office following an investigation into allegations about his conduct originally published in the media in June 2009.

    “Whilst the media reported a number of allegations the judicial investigation only focused on those with an impact on his role as a judge. “The investigation found his actions brought the judiciary into disrepute, rendering his position untenable. “In the light of the investigation, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice informed the judge in December 2009 that they considered his behaviour merited removal from office.

    “In accordance with the judicial discipline regulations, Judge Price was entitled to ask for their decision to be reviewed by a review body panel. “He did so and the panel was chaired by Lady Justice Smith. The panel agreed with the original decision of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor and recommended that Judge Price should be removed from office.

    “The judge has, however, resigned before the disciplinary process was formally concluded. His resignation took effect from June 30, 2010.” Mr Price has never issued any comment on the matter.

  • Judge resigns after losing appeal over prostitute investigation

    How can it be right? How judges impose gagging orders to hide celebrity scandals and make life and death decisions about society's most vulnerable in total secrecy

    Standing at the front of a wood-panelled room at the Royal Courts of Justice, the mother in a smart dark suit cried as she told the shocking story about the daughter she loves. The 21-year-old girl, from a middle-class family in the English Home Counties, has a learning difficulty and keeps getting pregnant.

    Because of her hapless lifestyle, the girl already has one small son, and at the time of the court hearing this spring she was about to give birth to a second child, a daughter. Elisa, as we will call the mother, told the judge that her daughter understood little of how babies are made. Although sexually mature, she was unable either to exercise restraint or comprehend that if she continued to have children they would be adopted. Elisa asked the judge if her daughter could be sterilised.

    ‘She doesn’t see anything wrong with her behaviour. She hasn’t got the capacity to realise the consequences of her actions. 'The problem is, if she has any more children, we as a family can’t make a commitment to bring them up,’ she said. Any future children would be removed from her for adoption. She doesn’t understand that she won’t ever see those children again even though she says: “I am their mummy.”

    She doesn’t understand that they will get a new mummy. She thinks she will be able to see them at Christmas, birthdays and weekends.’ Elisa’s heart-breaking plea was made at the Court of Protection (CoP), a little-known body which operates in the strictest secrecy. Under the laws of the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, it makes decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to do so for themselves. People like Elisa’s daughter or others facing life-and-death dilemmas.

    The judges can compel these vulnerable souls to undergo surgery, take part in medical experiments, use contraception or have abortions. They can decide if a life-support system is switched off, where a person lives or with whom. In one incidence, the court ruled that a man with a low IQ should be banned from having a sexual relationship. And while it might seem essential to have a court taking these kinds of decision, the secrecy with which it operates is considered by many akin to state oppression of the kind described in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

    For, equally controversially, the CoP judges can authorise what are called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They allow council or NHS officials to restrain someone in a hospital, care home, or re-training facility for as long as the State deems it to be ‘in their best interests’. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP, is campaigning for the Court of Protection to be more open. He says there are hundreds of people who are having their liberty taken away or their rights trampled on by this court — without the outside world knowing.

    Only last week a desperate mother asked the court to allow the life support machine keeping her brain-damaged daughter alive to be switched off. As is standard in the court, the daughter was referred to only by a letter ‘M’ to protect her identity. But 24 hours later, the judge issued an unprecedented draconian injunction stopping any discussion or debate about the issues involved — for the rest of M’s life.

    The ruling barred the media from approaching a list of 65 people who play, or have played, some part in M’s life. It stifled any reasonable debate about the moral dilemmas and stopped her family publicly expressing their views on what should happen or why. Furthermore, it threatened anyone who made any such inquiries, apart from going to M’s solicitors, with prison or the seizure of their assets. The press was barred from going within 50 yards of four addresses where M or her family have lived in the past or now.

    This type of injunction has never been used before in this type of case. It is normally employed to protect vulnerable women from violent ex-partners or scientists being injured by animal rights protesters. And it follows growing concern about the widespread use of injunctions by another group in society — the rich and famous — to prevent scandalous details about their lives being published.

    In the past few weeks there have been almost daily landmark rulings by judges who are using the courts to develop a judge-made privacy law in this way. But with the CoP, the mania for secrecy has taken an even more sinister turn, for it involves decisions made by an unaccountable court acting over the life — or death — of an individual.

    Injunctions are suppressing essential discussion and debate about important issues

    And it is stopping legitimate public discussion of what is a vital legal, moral and social issue. As Mr Hemming said: ‘Anyone who asks questions of anyone in the case, whether they answer or not, risks going to jail. ‘This is about the life or death of a human being and I don’t think it’s acceptable for this to happen. There is a real issue about the Court of Protection operating in a secretive bubble.’

    The case, however, allowed a rare glimpse into the workings of the CoP, which has been hugely criticised since it was established in 2007 after a change in the mental health laws. The criticism reached a crescendo in the case of Steven Neary, an autistic 20-year-old, who was removed from his father Mark’s care by Hillingdon Council in London. In December 2009, Steven’s 51-year-old father became ill with flu. Mark has looked after his son at the family’s house in Uxbridge, Middlesex, all his life. But he asked the council for some help with Steven for just a few days until he recovered.

    Steven went into the council’s care for three days — to a home he had stayed at before, when his father needed a rest. Steven even knew some of the staff. Autistic people find it easier to function in a familiar environment and Mark thought all would be well. But after the first day in respite, the staff said they were ‘unable to cope with Steven’. He was upset at being parted from his father. He had a habit of tapping staff on the shoulder to attract their attention, just as he did to Mark, and kept asking when he was going home Every time a shoulder-tap happened it was put down in the respite centre’s daily log as an ‘assault’. When Mark went to collect his son after three days, many such ‘assaults’ had occurred.

    The staff announced that they were ‘retaining’ Steven for ‘assessment’. No, his father couldn’t take him home. The boy was transferred to an ominously named ‘Positive Behaviour Unit’ run by the council, in another part of West London. There, the staff believed they could alter Steven’s behaviour and tone down his autistic tendencies. For Mark, the battle lines were drawn. He knew his son well, and how to deal with him. He knew that his favourite TV character was Mr Bean, and in particular the episode when Mr Bean puts the Christmas turkey on his head.

    Mark remembers one Christmas when they laughed at the turkey episode on TV. But then Steven disappeared to the kitchen. His father knew what his son was thinking. It was instinctive, after a lifetime of looking after an autistic child. He followed him out, and just stopped him putting the family’s own freshly roasted Christmas bird on his head. Such behaviour would have flummoxed the Positive Behaviour Unit, where staff soon declared that Steven lacked insight into his own behaviour (a classic trait of autism), and might physically harm others, including children or animals.

    Steven became so unhappy that one night in April 2010 he escaped in his pyjamas, met a vicar on the street, removed the vicar’s glasses and threw them on the ground. Before long, the local press had heard of the situation, and Mark co-operated with them, telling his side of the story — and explaining he was determined to bring his son home permanently so he could look after him. The story swiftly spread all over the internet. Hillingdon Council was equally determined that Steven should remain in professional care. The council applied successfully to the Court of Protection for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard or DOLS order.

    Steven was allowed home for only two hours at a time, and was barred from staying overnight. Two council workers watched over him night and day. His father pleaded with the council to reverse this decision, but it refused. He explained to them: ’I am not saying there are not difficult moments with Steven, but I have managed for years without any real problems. I know how to stop him becoming anxious, which leads to him lashing out. I know my son.’

    Things hit rock bottom in July 2010, when Hillingdon Council told Mark that Steven would never be allowed home. He was to be moved to a secure centre in another part of the country because of his challenging behaviour. Mark has since explained that his son is sociable, and will shake hands, although he is not good at answering questions unless they are about his pet subjects, such as Mr Bean or the pop group Abba. If he is in a strange environment he will get nervous, and sometimes he has kicked out or tried to pull a visitor’s fingers.

    Mark kept a log of such incidents, noting that in four months up to the time Steven went into respite care, there were just 12. Once he was away from home, Hillingdon Council recorded 306 over seven months — a dramatic deterioration in his behaviour. His father explained during this stressful time: ‘As he does not like being there, he gets agitated and anxious, and they have reported aggressive behaviour.

    Being forced into a situation he does not like and finds difficult to understand means he gets upset and this is used as evidence against him. ‘Prior to going to the treatment unit Steven had quite a good life, content with his routines and activities such as swimming or watching the TV.’ Mark Neary was not going to give up. He hired a lawyer and decided to take on Hillingdon Council as well as the Court of Protection which issued the restraining order on Steven.

    A Facebook campaign orchestrated by Mark followed. It was brilliantly successful and thousands signed up, saying that the father and son should be reunited. Mark was finally allowed to have his say at the CoP last December, when an interim order was granted to allow Steven back home for Christmas. Future hearings will decide on whether Hillingdon Council acted appropriately, and rule on the long-term care of Steven.

    So why wasn’t Mark’s case subjected to the usual secrecy that the Court of Protection insists on? Because it was too late — by the time the CoP was involved, the local newspaper had already reported the situation, Mark and Steven’s names were all over the internet and the CoP was forced to lift its ban on publicity. But if this hadn’t happened the probability is that the world would never have known about Steven, who could be locked up in an unsuitable institution and denied his father’s love.

    In Elisa’s daughter’s case, the reporting restrictions were also allowed to be partially lifted after huge public interest. But Elisa is not her real name and she is not allowed to talk about the case even to her MP — if she does so, she faces imprisonment. This, then, is the very dark and Kafkaesque world of CoP.

    Earlier this year, a 41-year-old man living at a council home, and in a relationship with another man, which he said made him happy, was barred by the Court of Protection from ever having sex with any human being again. The intimate details of the life of ‘A’ and his partner came to light at the CoP after his local council said his ‘vigorous sex drive’ was inappropriate and that with an IQ of just 48 — the average is 100 — he did not understand what he was doing.

    The judge said the council should place ‘A’, who believed that babies were flown in by a stork or found under a bush, under ‘close supervision’ to stop him having a sexual relationship. He will be followed everywhere for the rest of his life by an orderly at the home, unless he is alone in his bedroom.

    linda van de water Waukesha County judge charged with disorderly conduct
    Police cite outburst at ex-beau in Caledonia

    Waukesha County Circuit Judge Linda Van De Water has been charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly kicking and jumping on her ex-boyfriend's car after confronting him outside the home of another woman, according to a criminal complaint. Van De Water, 48, frantically pounded on the door of the woman's neighbor while looking for the man and tore through the residential neighborhood in a sport utility vehicle at a high rate of speed after the confrontation. She was later caught lurking in the woman's yard and confronting the ex-boyfriend and the woman at a Brookfield restaurant, according to the complaint.

    A copy of the complaint, filed March 25 in Racine County Circuit Court, was obtained Wednesday. Van De Water has an unlisted number and could not be reached for comment.

    According to the complaint:

    About 2 a.m. Jan. 16, Van De Water began pressing the doorbell and pounding on the front door of a residence in Caledonia. A woman who lived there said Van De Water, wearing a puffy coat and plaid pajamas tucked into her boots, was outside looking into the home through a front window.

    When the woman answered the door, Van De Water, "angry, frantic and determined," asked for the man. When the woman said he wasn't there, Van De Water asked her to dial the man's number on a cellphone. The woman dialed the number twice, each time handing the phone to Van De Water, who demanded the man come outside. After leaving, Van De Water went to a second residence before approaching a car and kicking it four times. After she walked away, the man came out of the second residence, got into the car and began making a U-turn.

    At that point, Van De Water emerged, jumped on the hood of the car and started screaming at the man. The man then opened the driver's door and pushed Van De Water away when she came at him, flailing her arms, according to the complaint. The man then headed east and Van De Water followed him in an SUV before turning back and heading up the street at between 35 and 45 mph, according to the complaint.

    judge tom carney A gun-waving incident on Interstate 79 in 2009 cost Erie 3rd Ward District Judge Tom Carney a $541 fine.

    He will appear before a disciplinary panel in Harrisburg to argue that his punishment should not go beyond that payment. Carney, 57, is set for a one-day trial in front of a three-judge panel of the Penn-sylvania Court of Judicial Discipline. The panel is not expected to reach a decision at today's trial, which is to start at 10 a.m. at the state Judicial Center, near the Capitol.

    If the panel convicts Carney of the ethics charges, the Court of Judicial Discipline could order sanctions, including suspension or removal from office. The trial is not a criminal proceeding. The panel will hear evidence from the state Judicial Conduct Board, which filed the ethics charges against Carney in September, and the defense. The board accused Carney of bringing his judicial office into disrepute, mainly because of the incident with the gun.

    Carney's lawyer, David Ridge, said he expects to call Carney and several other witnesses. He said the defense is "not conceding any type of sanctions" would be appropriate for Carney. "Our position is that a sanction is not absolutely necessary in this case," Ridge said.

    The chief counsel of the Judicial Conduct Board, Joseph A. Massa Jr., will present evidence against Carney. The most serious ethics allegations against him are related to his conviction on summary charges for waving a gun at another car on I-79 in January 2009. He also is accused of acting improperly by making public statements against graffiti, among other topics. In the gun-waving case, Carney in November 2009 pleaded guilty to two summary charges of disorderly conduct in Mercer County, where the incident occurred. Carney was driving north, heading to Erie, after attending a Pittsburgh Steelers game.

    In a plea deal, Carney agreed to pay the $541 fine, and the Mercer County District Attorney's Office dropped all other charges, which included the misdemeanor of simple assault. Carney, a Democrat, has remained in office. He was elected to a six-year term in November 2005 and is up for re-election this year. The primary is May 17.

    New gagging orders are 'a recipe for hiding injustice'

    A new breed of gagging order is preventing miscarriages of justice from being investigated, according to an MP campaigning against secrecy in Britain's courts. John Hemming said the rising tide of injunctions granted by the courts threatened to contravene the Magna Carta. The MP has launched an inquiry into "excessive and unlawful court secrecy" and will put his evidence before the Commons Justice Select Committee.

    The new order to which he refers involves a pregnant woman caught up in a High Court battle with her local authority. The order threatens her with imprisonment if she speaks to the media about her case. Journalists could also face jail for asking questions about the case. Mr Hemming said: "This goes a step further than preventing people speaking out against injustice. It also puts any investigative journalist at risk if they ask any questions of a victim of a potential miscarriage of justice.

    "I call this the 'Quaero injunction', after the Latin word 'to seek'. I don't think this should be allowed in English courts. It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice." The woman's lawyers also wrote to Mr Hemming asking him not to refer to her case in Parliament, despite the ancient right of parliamentary privilege allowing MPs to raise issues in the Commons without threat of impeachment. Mr Hemming used parliamentary privilege last month to disclose that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had taken out a super–injunction banning the publication of information about him – an order so draconian that it prevented him being identified as a banker.

    Increasing numbers of public figures are turning to the courts for injunctions to prevent their indiscretions from being made public. Cases that came to light last week include a leading actor who has gagged the press from reporting that he cheated on his wife with a prostitute, and a Premier League footballer who took out an injunction to ban reporting of his extramarital affair with a former Big Brother contestant. So–called "super–injunctions", which prevent even the disclosure that reporting restrictions are in place, have now been joined by "hyper–injunctions", in which parties are forbidden from discussing their case with MPs or journalists.

  • MP launches inquiry into ‘worrying’ rise of the super-injunction
    family court mafia MP's and judges now at war with each other over who really makes the laws within the UK. A supposed democratically elected body of MP's or unelected unaccountable completely independent judiciary? Both have major flaws but the fact JURIES and not JUDGES should be the decision makers and not the Queens hand picked lackeys is the cause of the biggest legal scams in history. Billions from estates are being seized by a crooked judiciary hell bent on removing all juries from decisions regarding land, property , business and children. Masonic thugs now run our legal system.

    'Let's threaten them with prison': MP goes to war with judges who hand out gagging orders

    An MP has called on Parliament to take action against the spread of a draconian new type of legal gag he calls the ‘hyper-injunction’. Liberal Democrat John Hemming wants the Commons to launch an arcane process that could theoretically threaten legal action against judges who hand out these blanket secrecy orders. They are part of a growing series of complicated gagging writs devised by the courts to prevent people from talking about cases in which they are involved – even to their local MP.

    They also bar them from talking to others who may be interested in their case, such as journalists. Mr Hemming has mentioned four specific hyper-injunctions in the Commons, including the case of Andrew France, a constituent who complained about the conduct of a social worker and who was silenced in a family case; a 26-year-old forcibly sent to a care home; and a commercial case involving allegations of contaminated water on passenger ships.

    The Birmingham Yardley MP said he has called on Speaker John Bercow to begin procedures to overturn these orders under Contempt of Parliament precedents dating back to the 17th century. It remains a legal tradition that people have a right to talk to MPs to petition the monarch and that politicians are free to take up the concerns of their constituents. Judges who grant hyper-injunctions do so to protect the secrecy of the courts in the name of defending the interests of children or others involved, who they believe could be unfairly damaged by publicity.

    Mr Hemming said he had asked the Speaker to give the issue priority for consideration by the Standards and Privileges Committee of MPs, which wields ancient legal powers. He said: ‘The records of the House of Commons make it clear that people have an inalienable right to talk to Members of Parliament in order to petition the King.’ Mr Hemming went on to list the options open to the Commons authorities, including passing ‘a resolution which could imprison someone until the end of the Parliamentary session’.

    He added: ‘I do not expect the House of Commons to imprison the judges, but it is important that the House acts to protect citizens today. ‘It is interesting to note that the subjects of the 17th century were more protected by the House of Commons than citizens have been today. Parliament needs to make a stand to say that it refuses to be deafened or blinded.’

    masonic court The main reason the wealthy have remained rich and powerful over centuries is that the courts are run by masons for masons. Freemasonic controlled judges ensure members of their funny hand shake club don't lose all their assets in divorce but reinforces the power masonry maintains by fleecing non mason men while propping up the satanic soul sellers. This is a wicked and evil system that ensures power and wealth remains in the hands of the very few while all other groups of men are left penniless and destitute by the CROWN thieves in family courts. Only those that serve the Queen and her despotic family via freemasonry, are allowed to hold onto their wealth with masonic judges providing court orders heavily biased in favour of establishment mason mens estates. Estates that throughout history have likely been obtained by other dodgy legal moves in those same courts and backed by crooked masonic judges and lawyers. Everyone else not part of their creepy satanic network will have any wealth and power destroyed by the same evil judiciary. How do we know? We have been victims of the scum that masquerade in their fancy robes and regalia that hides their true agenda.

    Why rich families today were probably rich 1,000 years ago

    Surnames which indicated nobility and wealth in medieval times are still richer even today, research has suggested. 'Moneyed' surnames, such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper. The research, which uses university admissions, probate records and official information going as far back as the Domesday Book, tracked what happened to those whose surnames suggest their forebears were either aristocratic or 'artisans' from the working class.

    Researcher Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, found that in the group with rare names he studied from the 1850s until 2011, the gap between rich and poor narrowed. However, those with 'rich' surnames left estates worth at least ten per cent above the national average, and also lived three years longer than the average, according to The Observer. Such names indicated a descent from Anglo-Saxon nobility, who came to England after the Norman Conquest and are found in the Domesday book of 1086.

    They drew their name from the surrounding Normandy towns and villages, the Observer says, whereas other 'poor ' surnames - such as Carpenter, Shepherd or Baker - indicated an occupation. In his paper - which is due to be presented at the Economic History Society's annual conference - Prof Clark says: 'Despite the social and political changes in England since the Industrial Revolution and the extension of the political franchise, if anything the rate of social mobility is slower now than in medieval England. 'The huge social resources spent on publicly provided education and health have seemingly created no gains in the rate of social mobility.

    'The modern meritocracy is no better at achieving social mobility than the medieval oligarchy.' And while rich and poor in general may eventually become 'average', with 'no permanent social classes', those from the 1850s may take another 'two to four' generations to get there, he finds. Prof Clark added a warning for the current poor in Britain: it may be many generations 'perhaps centuries' before they achieve equality.


    Driver evokes ancient law in fines hearing as he faces jail over refusal to pay fine

    POLICE were called to Torquay Magistrates Court after a defendant evoked an ancient law dating back to 1666 after being charged with non-payment of fines. Max Cann, 53, listed as being from Wellesley Road, Torquay was arrested for non-payment of £690 after he was convicted by magistrates of using a motor vehicle without insurance on Feb 5 2010. He was fined £520, ordered to pay court costs of £150 and the £15 vicitm surcharge. But Cann said he denied being 'found guilty of anything'.

    Trouble started at the Union Street court house on Saturday morning when supporters of Cann refused to rise when asked to do so by the Clerk of Court. As the magistrates retired, the public gallery was cleared and the family and friends were not allowed back into court because they had not risen to their feet when asked to do so for chairman of the bench Stan Squires. Then shortly afterwards police officers arrived at the court.

    Eventually Cann, representing himself, was called on to appear from the custody cells. However, he refused to enter the dock or take the witness stand, and would only agree to enter the court. Standing in the doorway of the custody area of the court, flanked by personnel from the security company which handles defendants' court procedures, he said to the magistrates and court staff: "Are you all under oath?

    "I am not refusing anything. I am wishing to hear, for and on the record, are you under oath sir?" Chairman of the bench Mr Squires, after listening to some minutes of Cann's questioning, retired the bench and Cann was taken back to the cells. He was offered the services of duty solicitor John Smethurst, but also refused those.

    When he came back into court Cann said he was an agent for Max Cann under the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, and did not confirm where he lived or his date of birth, adding: "If you do not tell me you are under oath, I will take it you are impersonating magistrates." He also said his address given in court belonged to 'the general records office'.

    He said: "I do not personally own anything." Cann also asked whether this was a 'de facto' court and explained he was arrested as he was reporting 'treason in this land'. The clerk of court then explained that because he would not take an oath, was not prepared to use the duty solicitor, the court could not find his financial circumstances and he was not making an offer to pay the debt he owes the court, magistrates could find he was 'wilfully refusing' to pay the fines — an offence that carries a 28-day prison sentence.

    Cann was asked again whether he would offer a payment rate, but he simply said 'no'. Mr Squires, said: "We are finding willful refusal to pay, and are committing him to prison, suspended on payment of £5 per week. If he doesn't pay then he will be arrested and it is likely that warrant will be activated." During the entire proceedings, police as well as court security were present in the lobby and stood outside the entrance to Court One where proceedings took place.

  • Focus on 'lawful rebellion'
    Watching the world's media focus on the Japanese tsunami and report the horrors of what a few seconds can do to a country and its people and rightly so, yet that same global media , a pariah , fails to mention or ever report on the biggest tsunami that has been sweeping the world causing death and destruction, not just for a few seconds, but for years and years.

    The judicial tsunami that has destroyed the lives of millions , cost the lives of many thousands more and that seldom if ever gets reported. Or at least when those deaths are reported the global media distort and distract attention away from the REAL cause of lives lost which is the power of a small self appointed judicial mafia to ride roughshod over the lives of every victim they utterly abuse and destroy.

    If you happen to be part of the judicial tsunami flotsam and have been clinging onto life after they have virtually wiped you and your family out you will know the power of the judicial mafia is so enormous and destructive that ALL natural disasters pale next to the psychological and physical devastation ruthlessly meted out by utter monsters of human beings. Their media friends would have you believe when they report that another nasty pervert has been jailed and the JUDGE makes comment that these judicial mobsters are doing a good job. But that is the massive facade their media buddies build around the utter scum and dregs of the earth that masquerade in their robes and regalia to hide the stinking rotting corpses that lie at the heart of their vicious attacks on men and their families across the globe. It is really impossible to describe how monumental changes, that can happen so rapidly, when these mobsters attach themselves to your life, assets , home but most importantly your children. They are the ultimate leeches, that by shuffling a few dodgy legal papers, can at a stroke of a masonic pen take away the many years of toil and leave you with NOTHING.

    Wars and natural disasters are a GREAT way for their media barons to distract us, while ignoring the fact that they are and will remain the ultimate terrorists hiding behind the global news system that they have perfected to avoid suspicion and investigation and that we intend NOT to allow those distractions to prevent the continued exposures of the worlds most horrific crimes created by a judicial tsunami that MUST be stopped before more lives are lost by their unchecked powers.

  • How UK's thieving and corrupt judges continue to rifle mens assets on a grand scale
  • Hypocrite judicial sponger slags of jobless sponger and all reported in their controlled media
  • Hypocrite judge Christopher Elwen told him: "For a period of at least six years, if not longer, you have made the home life of the Roth family absolute hell through your bizarre fetish and disgusting behaviour."
    We have finally been given a date for our unprecedented challenge of the Judiciary's Jurisdiction to sit in judgment of anyone whilst being guilty of violating the rule of law and engaging in criminal acts such as false imprisonments, perverting the due course of justice, obstructing justice and much more. We will be heard at The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, 8th and 9th March 2011 at 10:30am

    The Judiciary will be presented with documented evidence which will preclude it from sitting in judgment because the rules of natural justice requires that "no man can be a judge in his own cause"

    Furthermore, article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees the right to a Fair Independent Impartial hearing or tribunal and it must plainly follow that the Judiciary cannot be the judges of their criminal acts. It will require more corruption to prevent this case from succeeding and the implications are extremely far reaching for the entire criminal and civil justice system of the UK. No lawbreaker can be a law enforcer and this is guaranteed by article 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, "no punishment without law" A deliberate silent media has aided and abetted this ongoing corruption for many years but finally, patience may have its victory, nonetheless, justice must be seen to be done so, you are invited to come along on the above dates to ensure that JUSTICE PREVAILS.

  • Campaign for Truth & Justice
  • Parents denied a voice in court against the (masonic) child-snatchers


    As far as Sandy Fonzo was concerned, justice wasn't done Friday.

    Fonzo, who says her son committed suicide last year at age 23 after a downward spiral that began when he was unfairly incarcerated by former Juvenile Court judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., angrily confronted Ciavarella as he appeared with attorneys to address the press outside a federal courthouse in Scranton Friday. "My kid's not here," she screamed. "My kid's dead. My son shot himself in the heart." As U.S. Marshals led Fonzo across the street to separate her from Ciavarella, she continued to yell:

    "He's a scumbag. He ruined my (expletive deleted) life. There's no justice unless he dies. I thought the U.S. Marshals were going to take him out in handcuffs." Fonzo, 41, of Wilkes-Barre, said her son, Edward Kenzakoski III, was charged with underage drinking at age 17 and placed in the PA Child Care juvenile detention center at the heart of the kids-for-cash case for 30 days. Ciavarella then sent him to a camp near Shamokin, where he came in contact with gang members and juveniles held on homicide charges. "The kid was never the same," she said. "He ripped him out of his home."

    Kenzakoski, who had been an accomplished wrestler at Coughlin High School, began to get into fights and after what Fonzo described as a fender-bender when he was nearly 21 years old, Ciavarella revoked his probation and sent him to Western PA Child Care in Butler County, the other center in the kids-for-cash case. "There goes his job. There goes his life. He got into a fight. It just began to snowball." A distraught Kenzakoski shot himself last June, Fonzo said.

    Fonzo said she left her job as a physical therapist in Kingston Friday when she heard Ciavarella had been found guilty and drove to Scranton. "I would have loved to see him go to prison," Fonzo said. Fonzo's outburst unnerved Ciavarella's attorney, Al Flora Jr., who had just begun telling reporters he considered Friday's verdict a victory for his client.

    "That was a scary moment. We knew the marshals were right there and we knew the marshals were able to handle the situation immediately. They did. They stepped in appropriately and they took care of the situation." Asked about the anger felt by Fonzo and other parents whose children he sent to detention and treatment centers, Ciavarella said he didn't recognize Fonzo. "I don't know that lady. I don't know what the facts and circumstances are concerning her son."


    The power of judges to review ministerial decisions should be diminished, former Tory leader Lord Michael Howard said today. The ex-home secretary said judges were unelected and unaccountable and should be very reluctant to interfere in decisions made by elected politicians.

    His comments came as a group of local authorities were launching a High Court challenge against the Government's controversial decision to axe Labour's multibillion-pound Building Schools for the Future (BSF) secondary school rebuilding scheme. "In my view, the power of the judges, as opposed to elected politicians, has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished," Lord Howard told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. "More and more decisions are being made by unelected, unaccountable judges, instead of accountable, elected Members of Parliament who have to answer to the public for what happens."