MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT PROTECTS THE LEGAL MAFIA
Details and commentary of the "Memorandum of Understanding" that is used widely by the legal profession and police but which has now migrated for clients, associated bodies/ individuals and chosen third parties.
Any and every one of these parties above uses it to either protect themselves or others "within" (as a Defence) but its use can and is used to target a victim with agression for unjust and unlawful gain and/or persecution.
The detailed Memorandum can be found by reference to
However we make an introductory Commentary upon it :-
" The Memorandum is one of the cornerstones of corrupt intent and practice in the UK by and for the chosen few. It also puts enormous unaccountable, unjust and unlawful power into the hands of a few people who can decide secretly on the destiny of a privileged person/ body or victim.
That victim can be stopped from taking action against a wrong-doing by a privileged person/ body or can be the target of unjust victimisation for "destruction".
The whole process is highly illegal and corrupt, let alone immoral, but, because it is exercised by those at the highest level of influence and power, it can be silently covered up in the claim of "public interest".
In detail, the Memorandum binds the legal profession, their chosen clients, ie banks, and police in an Agreement to decide between them what action, if any, be taken where regulatory, Criminal procedures, etc are involved. We have underlined some important clauses that show deferment to secret agreements and decisions on, say, Criminal matters to avoid police investigation and court action.
This is blatant Perversion of the Course of Justice; a Common Law offence that carries unlimited penalties. The Memorandum "legalises" Conspiracy, defined by the Criminal Law Act 1977 as agreement with another person/s to carry out an offence.
It is practised by the judiciary in the courts, as a second line, to any action/s that solicitors/ barristers will take to distract Justice. Any appeal to the police and criminal courts is referred to the Lord Chancellor/ Department (now the Ministry of Justice?) and the course of justice is halted by the secret bonding of the above. This is reflected throughout these sites.
For many, many years these Memoranda have produced a "culture" of immunity and impunity for the wrong-doings and Criminal acts of the legal profession, chosen clients, judiciary and selected members of the "Establishment", and many others that will be exposed elsewhere on this site. They are embraced readily by the police who are excused time and cost to pursue their legally required duty, not least as they are restricted in resources and can contribute to the false image of high-level honesty and integrity, plus of course upholding the standards of our UK perception."
ACCOUNTANT JAILED FOR THROWING ACID OVER LAWYERS IN COURT ROOM DRAMA
"Describing his loathing of the country's courts, he said: 'I have no faith in the British judicial system and I feel they are worse than the Nazis.
'They have ruined every single thing in my life, simply because they are a bunch of racist thugs. They are evil people.'"
An accountant was facing an indefinite jail sentence today after throwing hydrochloric acid over three High Court lawyers.
Ashok Mahajan, 55, who has a history of courtroom violence, launched his furious attack after losing a negligence action against a law firm.
As his appeal was dismissed, Mahajan got up to leave. When the judge asked him to remain, his response was to first 'hurl abuse at all' and then throw the acid.
The highly corrosive liquid left lawyer Lucy Colter screaming in agony as it seared into her eye.lar
The acid also stung her mouth, splattered one of her arms and landed on her legs, melting her tights and burning her skin.
She told jurors that 'liquid started coming through the air and sort of raining down around me.
'At that point I turned and looked at Mr Mahajan. He looked back at me and threw more liquid.'
Two other lawyers, Richard Liddell and Claire White, were also doused and suffered damaged clothes and 'stinging'.
The acid also soaked oak panelling, scarring the varnish.
As 'pungent' fumes left people gasping for breath, swearing Mahajan sprayed more of the solution over his victims.
A courtroom tape recorded both his tirade and his victims' cries of pain and shock.
Mahajan - veteran of a string of courtroom battles beginning with a 1986 custody fight for his son - was detained within minutes.
But in evidence he said he had thrown only water, claiming the acid was planted afterwards as part of a conspiracy to frame him.
He claimed the British judicial system - which he branded 'worse than Nazis' - had joined forces with police, Government 'agents' and the medical profession to tamper with evidence and make him stand trial despite his poor health.
However, jurors at London's Southwark Crown Court took just 47 minutes to decide he was lying.
The defendant, originally an Indian national but now a British citizen living in Wembley, North West London, was unanimously convicted of three counts of assault intending to cause grievous bodily harm on October 15 last year.
Remanding him in custody until August 21 for pre-sentence and psychiatric reports, Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith warned him he was also 'ordering an assessment of his dangerousness' - the first step towards the possible imposition of an indeterminate sentence.
The court heard that the attack on the three lawyers had its roots in a failed race discrimination action Mahajan brought against employment agency AOC Ltd and Kingston Primary Care Trust, where he worked as an accountant.
Mahajan, who ended up representing himself after his barrister withdrew because of 'professional embarrassment', insisted everyone present in court when he hurled the acid had lied.
Describing his loathing of the country's courts, he said: 'I have no faith in the British judicial system and I feel they are worse than the Nazis.
'They have ruined every single thing in my life, simply because they are a bunch of racist thugs. They are evil people.'
Mahajan, who repeatedly claimed he had thrown water, said the first he realised something was wrong was when a security guard instead accused him of hurling acid.
'Now I realise it was a whole planned conspiracy. They have not a shred of evidence against me.'
Accusing hospital doctors of being part of the plot against him for judging him fit to stand trial, the accountant added that he had missed 50 dialysis sessions and was now 'dying'.
TEMPLE CHURCH'S UNUSUAL EXHIBITION ON GERMANY'S JEWISH LAWYERS
There is growing evidence the centre of world tyranny and the NWO lies at the
heart of Temple Church in London where the worlds lawyers are controlled from.
Many of the victims of the bar association lawyers who have swindled and stolen
victims homes and assets lie at the heart of the EVIL network of power that
the British Crown controls via inner temple and the surrounding legal mafia
that accumulates in this part of London.
It is interesting that during 1 May 2009 until 31 July 2009 they are having an
exhibition within Temple Church about LAWYERS WITHOUT RIGHTS and JEWISH LAWYERS
IN GERMANY UNDER THE THIRD REICH. It is NO coincidence that what seems to be
destroying many peoples lives presently are the power of the lawyers
that operate around Temple Church formerly built by the Knights Templar later to
be integrated into the secret societies and masonic lodges that are part of
the Zionist network of control worldwide.
There is a sinister connection between the growing power of the legal systems
worldwide and the masonic controlled bar associations that operate from Temple
church used as part of the "DA VINCI CODE" book and film by Dan Brown.
Brown may have put a lot of spin into what part Temple Church plays in world
affairs but there is a growing body of evidence that shows it is where much
of the EVIL that encircles the world emanates from.
THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
Presently despite Scottish lawyers making this point there are virtually NO juries in civil cases in Scotland where corrupt lawyers and judges in civil courts have been getting away with murder stealing vast swathes of land ,business and property without ANY juries only hand picked judicial lackeys of a corrupt English crown.
Leading Scots lawyers: England is wrecking justice by ruling to scrap trial by jury.
Donald Findlay says trial by jury chosen at random is ‘the last real example of democracy at work’.
THE LAST bastion of English democracy has been destroyed by a landmark ruling to hold a serious criminal trial with no jury, a top Scottish lawyer has warned.
The controversial decision to hear a crown court case without jurors was branded "very, very dangerous" by Donald Findlay QC, who said the move threatened to topple public faith in the legal system.
Four men accused of a multi-million-pound armed robbery at Heathrow Airport will now have their fate decided by a lone judge after the Court of Appeal ruled that the risk of jury tampering through bribery or intimidation was too great for the trial to go ahead as normal.
After the collapse of three previous trials, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, announced on Thursday that "the danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant".
The decision marks the first time ever that a crown court case in England or Wales will be heard by a judge alone, using powers granted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Donald Findlay, one of the most respected legal minds in Scotland, told the Sunday Herald that he was "very uncomfortable" with the idea.
Asked whether similar legislation could be brought into Scotland, he said: "I really do hope not. My view is that the jury is the last real example of democracy at work. I take the view that political democracy disappeared a long time ago.
"A jury is chosen at random, with no qualifications. It brings together collective experience, and that to me is what democracy is all about. It's at the heart of our legal system."
Findlay continued: "We administer justice for the people and it's the people's justice, so the people should feel involved and be part of it. It should not simply be something that is going on round about them.
"The risk is that justice is handed over in its entirety to a very small group of men and women who don't necessarily qualify to bring to the task the same range of experience that a larger body of members of the public have."
Another of the country's foremost legal figures, Paul McBride QC, joined his colleague in criticising the English development.
Though he said he would support the idea of judge-only hearings in certain cases, such as those deemed likely to drag on for several months, McBride did not agree that tampering was a significant fear to justify trial without jury.
He said: "We've had gangland cases in Scotland where appropriate security arrangements are put in place to prevent the jury from being bribed or intimidated. It's easily done - it's not rocket science."
The idea of dispensing with a jury because of intimidation "wouldn't wash in a Scottish court", he added, even if the relevant legislation were in place.
Civil liberty campaigners were also outraged by the court's decision this week. Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said the trial set "a dangerous precedent".
"The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system," she said.
"What signal do we send to witnesses if the police can't even protect juries?"
Amidst the criticism, a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: "This case shows that defendants who abuse their right to jury trial by embarking on jury tampering will not succeed in defeating justice."
The situation in Scotland is markedly different from that in England, in part because the Magna Carta of 1215 - which guarantees the right to trial by jury - does not apply north of the border.
But others in the Scottish legal establishment voiced their support for the juryless trial, which they pointed out was going ahead under exceptional circumstances.
Peter Duff, professor of criminal justice at Aberdeen University, said: "I might be worried if it was a regular occurrence, but as a one-off it doesn't seem like a problem, because there was a worry the jury might be prejudiced."
Lord Judge said the trial of John Twomey, 61, Barry Hibberd, 41, Peter Blake, 56, and Glen Cameron, 49, who are all accused of the robbery at Heathrow in 2004, would "take place without a jury in due course".
By Ron Branson – Minister and Founder of National J.A.I.L.
Not long ago Peace Officers used to roam the country. While they did carry guns
and display badges, their only responsibility was to see that people in society
peaceably got along with one another. If people were not destructive of another’s
life, liberty, or property, Peace Officers were satisfied.
Citizens retained a “Live and Let Live” philosophy; that is, “If you aren’t
bothering me, I won’t bother you.” This was the American way of life pursuant
to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and it worked quite well.
Under those circumstances, only a few Peace Officers were needed on the public
payroll; they were always pleasant and sought to be friendly and helpful to everyone.
Why, they would even help the elderly and infirm cross the street!
But then things changed in America. The titles of these helpful Peace Officers changed to “Law Enforcement Officers” and this land became inundated with swarms of new officers intent on harassing our People and eating out their substance. The “Law Enforcement” growth industry grew until it became second in size only to General Motors. It has now surpassed GM and is now the number one industry in America. It emcompasses all other industries, including beds, computers, typewriters, paper (tons of it), food, fuel, insurance, armament, the steel industry and welders, automobiles, buses, mechanics, electronics, and every other product that can be imagined.
It provides revolving-door job security for judges, prosecutors, police, attorneys, investigators, clerks, bailiffs, janitors, bus drivers—in fact the transporting of prisoners is greater than the Greyhound and Continental Trailways industries. Our country has many times more per capita of its people in prisons than has any other foreign dictatorship. We are undeniably the incarceration capital of the world working our way toward life circulating around steel bars where one is either an incarcerator or an incarceratee. (Outside looking in, or inside looking out.)
Maintaining peace in society is no longer the agenda, but rather Enforcement of New World Order policies. Peacefulness, in fact, threatens the Law Enforcement Industry, for they now need discord and societal unrest to justify the need for their existence. With Peace Officers the system wasn’t broken, so there was no need to fix it. This relatively peaceful situation created a problem for the enemies of our freedom; so they had to create, or at least make us believe there was a need for, “Law Enforcement Officers,” so they could put an end to freedom in this country.
It used to be that there had to be a victim in order for there to be a crime. This had to be changed under the “Law Enforcement” standard-- victims are no longer needed. Crime has been redefined as a violation of some policy created by highly-paid bureaucrats, who recline in easychairs in ivory towers, and whose intent it is to rake in the profits of “new crimes” into their coffers. Thus, it became more and more profitable to make most everything a victimless crime. The more discord and unrest in society, the better; for it brought in even greater profits. Thus, “laws” (policies) were passed in abundance.
The fact is, these bureaucrats (the foreign power) do not wish you to even contemplate that in America there really is no such thing as a “Law Enforcement Officer.” It is a ficticious concoction of evil men. If everyone figured this out, it would do great harm and destruction to their build-up of the New World Order, and the planned control of this world as it now controls this country.
You can always tell if you are dealing with an enemy agent of the New World Order by the title they use. If they are claiming the title of a Law Enforcement Officer instead of Peace Officer, you know for certain you have encountered contact with an enemy agent of the New World Order.
It was once demanded of me that I produce a Socialist Number establishing that I was a subject of the developing New World Order. I responded that I was not a Socialist, but rather an American. These “Law Enforcement Officers” became extremely troubled, and proceeded to search me without a warrant or Probable Cause as required under the U.S. Constitution. When I objected, they said, “Go ahead and object, we can search you for weapons and contraband.” Therefore these agents called “Law Enforcement Officers” used this ridiculous pretext for removing my wallet by force and searching it for “weapons and contraband.” What they were really searching for was a Socialistic membership card evidencing that I was a slave of the New World Order.
Out of frustration, they demanded to know, “What prison did you come out of? we can’t find your criminal record,” to which I replied, “That is because I am not a criminal.” These so-called Law Enforcement Officers imagine that everyone has to have a criminal record; for after all, non-criminals pose a threat to their existence.
Not knowing what else to do with me, under the guise of enforcing a concocted felony arrest, they drug me into a strip-search cell for felony arestees, following a “law enforcement” policy that all felons had to be strip-searched. This policy had already been determined to be unconstitutional pursuant to the findings of Los Angeles Federal Judge Stephen Wilson, whose decision was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nevertheless, under supposed “law enforcement” policy, I was tazered with four electric darts emitting 50,000 volts of electricity through my body. Everytime I responded that I stood upon the Constitution of the United States, these Law Enforcement Officers would turn on the tazer electricity for thirty seconds of pure torture, sending my body into horrific muscle spasms. This torture took place three consecutive times of thirty seconds each. Thereafter, I was asked by one of the Law Enforcement Officers how it felt. I was tempted to say it felt good, and that they should try it sometime; but I restrained myself from such sarcasm, and told them it was like peeling back the insulation of an electric wire and hanging on to it while plugging it into a live socket.
I was then, under “law enforcement” policy, thrown into a holding cell and told that they would let me see a judge just as soon as I let them take my fingerprints. I told them they had no choice but to take me before a magistrate for a determination of Probable Cause under the Constitution of the United States. They responded, “You have no rights under the Constitution.” At that time, I begged to differ with them on this constitutional argument; but I have since learned that they were right, no one has any protection under the Constitution of the United States according to “law enforcement” policy. The policies of the budding New World Order are The Supreme Law of this land, and I was here dealing with Law Enforcement Officers, and not Peace Officers.
Six days into my false imprisonment without review by any judicial officer, I was brought out before a commissioner who said, “Mr. Branson, I hear you gave the police a hard time.” She was nothing more than an agent for these “Law Enforcement Officers.” Interestingly, a judge in another court stated, “Mr. Branson, you know enough law to be dangerous!” What’s that? Knowledge of the law presents a danger to these so-called honorable ones? This reminds me of men who have hands that have been declared to be lethal weapons. In the news was a report of two young thugs who sought to jump an older man walking down the street and take away his wallet. What they did not know was that this man had lethal hands. He quickly broke their bones and landed both of them in the hospital, one with a broken arm and the other with a broken jaw.
On a later occasion with another team of Law Enforcement Officers I was told that until I surrendered a Socialist Number to them, I would not be permitted to use the bathroom at their station. I told them that even if they placed my head in a guillotine, they still would not get a Socialist Number, but that I would be glad to rattle off some numbers for them so I could use the bathroom. Because of this ridiculous policy, I was forced to use the floor in a public building in response to nature’s urgent call. This Law Enforcement policy, practice and custom, of course, is not within acceptable public health laws, so I reported these offenders to IA, which is Internal Affairs for these so-called Law Enforcement Officers. IA got back to me in writing stating, “After a full and complete investigation, we find no violation of any police policy regarding this matter.” So I guess what they were saying is that if at any time you are walking though the courthouse or a hospital, it is acceptable policy to just stop and use the floor if you have to.
All these types of discord, unrest, and indecency are necessary for the establishment of their Law Enforcement growth industry to fullfil the policies of the New World Order and its Socialistic Number of which they worship and serve.
So the next time you have the occasion to be doing business with someone wearing a badge and a gun, you might ask them if they are a Peace Officer or a “Law Enforcement Officer.” The first is constitutional; the latter is not.
Governments, local, county, state or federal, are artificial entities created by the people. Governments, collective organizations, were created to protect the life, liberty and property of each and every person.
Frederic Bastiat said: “If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”1
Individuals cannot transfer rights or powers they do not inherently possess to an artificial government entity. One cannot bestow a right or privilege that one does not possess – those powers that each and every person possessed prior to the establishment of said government. Individuals may not legally plunder the property or resources of others, kill people, impose moral sanctions, or a plethora of other regulations, public and private extortions that governments regularly engage in.
Bastiat said: “Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?”2
The government, constitutionally, is limited only to those functions in which an individual citizen has a right to act. The government has derived its powers from the governed. People cannot delegate powers it does not possess to its creation. John Locke explained the concept: “For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.”3
For instance, if Citizen A has a vehicle and Citizen B doesn’t, Citizen B cannot arbitrarily seize citizen A’s vehicle. That would be stealing! Citizen B, despite the fact that he may lust after Citizen A’s vehicle, cannot legally delegate a government entity to take Citizen A’s vehicle in his behalf. If the government usurps such authority, that would constitute public plundering – the road to tyranny. America is obviously well down that road, given the current pandemic public plundering sanctioned and facilitated by the government.
British victims of injustice should be using this legal step against corrupt
judges, lawyers, court officials, cops and bailiffs (sheriff officers) who are getting away
with murder in the UK thanks to the failures of every government
to wipe out the injustices that are flowing from vast corruption sweeping this
nation by a small self appointed cabal and legal mafia .
ALL Chief Constables are party to turning a blind eye to the
massive theft of land, business and property of victims instead aiding and
abeting the removal of families from their homes using ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL evictions.
MPs' expenses: Ancient right for anyone to be a prosecutor
The statue of the Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey building in London: Common law allows us to be a private prosecutor
Under ancient common law, an individual has a right to bring a criminal to justice in the courts if the state authorities fail to do so.
Private prosecutions are expensive, difficult to organise and involve producing a high level of proof to persuade a court that an accused can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But, occasionally, in cases of public scandal, they are effective in bringing great wrongdoing to light.
And if a private prosecution acquires momentum, then the Crown Prosecution Service may step in to put the legal action on to an official basis.
A private prosecution is brought when members of the public feel let down by the police or the CPS when apparently criminal behaviour is allowed to pass without investigation.
Scotland Yard is showing no inclination to involve its officers at Westminster in pursuit of what looks to the public like blatant instances of fraud.
Fraud carries a maximum sentence of ten years jail and - or - an unlimited fine. False accounting carries a maximum sentence of seven years. A private prosecution begins in a magistrates court. It can be brought by anyone who wants to see an act of injustice righted.
They do not need to be the victim. A magistrate is, at the first stage, asked for a summons against the accused to answer the charge.
If the authorities won't put sleaze MPs in court, the Mail will - with a campaign for private prosecutions
The court will ask for evidence of the crime. If the prosecution is to proceed, the case will be sent to a Crown Court for a jury trial.
Several eventualities could prevent that happening in the MPs' expenses case.
One possibility is that Commons authorities could rule that the matter falls within the bounds of Parliamentary privilege and may not be tried in the courts. Any such ruling would risk stoking up even greater public anger.
Commons authorities would also be asked to make evidence of expenses claims available. They have already promised to publish basic information in June. But they may still try to withold vital information that has so far been regarded as private, in particular vital material about addresses used by MPs.
There might also be a move to ask a High Court judge rather than a magistrate to rule on whether a private prosecution attempt can go to a full trial. Major private prosecutions in recent times include that by the parents of Stephen Lawrence. They brought a case against youths they believed responsible for the 1993 murder of their 18-year-old son.
The case collapsed when identification evidence was ruled inadmissable, but the campaign attracted support from the public which grew angry over the failures of the police investigation.
After a coroner ruled in 1997 that Stephen was the victim of an unlawful killing, the Daily Mail named five youths as his murderers.
It is generally assumed that the law consists of certain fundamental principles,
abstract bodies of reason, and a repository of wisdom, which serve the interests
of justice in every society. It is held that the principle of fair play informs
judicial decisions and opinions, and that due process and procedure is carried
out dispassionately without personal, political or professional prejudice.
However, not all of these assumptions can be justified. In fact, on many occasions the opposite is chillingly the case. The law is often executed arbitrarily in the interests of the few who dispense it, rather than for the benefit of the many that it is supposed to serve. It is shot through with discrepancies, inconsistencies, irregularities and peculiarities. If the law is an ass, it is a very clever and devious one.
The law acts as a mechanism for class control. It consolidates the hierarchical order that governs humanity, protecting the privileges of the elite and the powerful at the expense of many others. In every society there exists a certain group of people who, for all practical purposes, are outside the influence of the judicial process. The law therefore operates too often as a vehicle of the establishment. It is engaged in a conscious and surreptitious strategy to reshape culture, and to transform society in general. By constantly twisting the precepts that many people hold to be absolute, it will eventually change reality itself. If the truth is turned on its head often enough it will inevitably assume the shape that most accords with the demands of the moment. When this happens, any perversion of thought can be practised.
The law consists of a set of codes and rules that guide society, and help to regulate its operations on a daily basis. Those who interpret and implement these standards exercise enormous influence over people in general. The more obscure the rules, the more power is vested in the hands of those who translate them. More often than not the objective is to turn simple truths into a maze of complications, ordinary tenets into a tapestry of confusion. This way no one understands. When information is continually convoluted, even the most determined will eventually resign to the fact that they cannot even understand the most basic truths.
The law is therefore knowledge which is being constantly moulded and used as a weapon against the supposed common herd. It creates a mystique which, apparently, only the most brilliant legal minds can fathom. Its objective is not to enlighten, but to disempower. It garners power to the top. It burrows its claws into every interest, economic, social and political. It is an invisible monster, parasitical on society and dangerous too.
If the institutions of a nation are the vehicle, 'jurisprudence' is the engine. The 'devil's advocates' have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of all the mechanisms of state. They know where power resides and how it can be retained. They appreciate the subtleties that have to be invoked to preserve the appearance of conformity. Having formulated the laws that constitute the fundamental ethos of the state, they are in a great position to manipulate them.
The legal fraternity inveigles their way into everything. They bring within their sphere of influence family, finance, farm and firm. No area of privacy escapes their clutches. No level of intrusiveness is considered too embarrassing for their gaze. By penetrating into every organ of the state, they cement together a pyramidal structure of power that is almost invincible.
In contributing to, and sharing in a pool of knowledge, many advocates cross all ethical boundaries. They tamper with information that should never leave the precincts of the private individual. However, by passing the bloodied knife, everyone is implicated. Operating within a system more insidious than the Masonic lodges, very few can afford to be pure. Principle is thus displaced by expediency, and morality by might.
Only by surrendering the weight of personal identity to the bigger group can power be attained, and held indefinitely. When all influence emanates from the centre, control can be exercised much more rigorously. The weakness of the individual cell then becomes the strength and vigour of the overall organism. The lone legal functionary has power only in so far as he ceases to be his real self. If he does not forfeit his higher inclinations he can be very easily squeezed out. This process of isolation can be effected with remarkable ease.
When the mills of the legal profession start to grind, they do so comprehensively and ruthlessly. Very few within their ranks can challenge this potency. Only occasionally do the dark secrets that lurk beneath the portals of jurisprudence become manifest. The law is not only a profession; it also embraces many of the attributes of a cult orientation. Those who break the rules do so at their peril.
The objective of many in the legal profession is to operate at a certain level of inefficiency. An all-round slowing down of the process is an effective method of control. But incompetence does not impair their ability to turn over a big clientele, or a quick profit. Two and two can amount to five, but only when it affects the welfare of the public. Once this version of logic is accepted any perversion of truth can be tolerated.
There is nothing as lethal as a mixture of wilful arrogance and professional incompetence. But, policed as they are by their own body, they are, in the main, unaccountable, untouchable to a great extent. The grandiloquent tones they affect hide a deep truth. Bar the misappropriation of funds, which no amount of gobbledegook can explain, they can be brought to book for virtually nothing. In the meantime they can manipulate every area of life. Like every cartel, their remit is without end.
In many instances lawyer's allegiance to their colleagues supersedes the duty of care to their respective clients. In a conflict of interest that loyalty is always honoured. The alliance therefore is more horizontal in nature with the respective professionals on top, and the public beneath, rather than the vertical relationship of advocate and client on either side of the line. The power association is one of top to bottom across the board. Just like in the Cold War, where those in control of the competing power structures had an understanding, the real war was often waged against their own people. The intonation 'understanding' exerts a strong resonance in the legal world. It also carries a higher moral charge than does confidentiality.
The legal elite live in a self-contained universe. The more they become estranged from ordinary people, the more they have to rely on their own colleagues for succour and support. This further reinforces their delusions. They are presently changing the way many people conduct their lives. With the threat of compensation claims, in time it will be impossible to do almost anything. The legal fraternity is thus controlling society by stealth. Their brilliance is remarkable in that they can effect this process with such panache, and with such bravado. Criminals also try to dictate, but not with such impertinence.
However, there are many in the legal fields who work diligently for the greater good of humanity. They strive, against the odds, to bring into existence a more equitable system of justice. They labour tirelessly on behalf of their clients, and do not succumb to the expediency of the moment. They represent the proud standard bearers of a profession that has, to a great extent, lost its way.
COURT ANONYMITY: ONE RULE FOR LAWYERS ANOTHER FOR THE PUBLIC
Agency boss beats lawyer no-names bid
The head of a freelance news agency has defeated a bid to stop the media naming a barrister who was the alleged victim of an assault.
The Crown Prosecution Service submitted a six-page argument as it applied for an order under section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to give barrister Paul Bryning anonymity.
Section 46 allows a court to prohibit publication of anything which would identify a witness in criminal proceedings if the court is satisfied that the order is likely to improve the quality of evidence the witness gives, or the level of co-operation he or she gives to any party in connection with the party's preparation of its case.
The case arose over an incident in which Bryning alleged that he was assaulted by Gary Sunbeam, one of his clients, in a conference room at Manchester Combined Court Centre.
The case was moved to Blackpool because Bryning was well known in Manchester.
At the start of the hearing, on March 23, the prosecution handed District Judge Peter Ward the six-page application for anonymity, arguing that the quality of Bryning's evidence would improve if the order was made and that Mr Bryning's career could be damaged by unfounded derogatory allegations which it was thought Sunbeam might make during the course of the trial.
But journalist David Graham, head of Lancashire-based freelance agency Watsons, objected to the application.
He argued that no other complainants at court that day would be given the privilege of anonymity, and pointed out that other people, such as police officers, were often the subject of incorrect or malicious allegations during trials but were not given anonymity.
There was also a danger that the public would view an anonymity order as being one rule for the lawyers and another for the general public, Mr Graham said.
District Judge Ward declined to make the order sought by the CPS.
A CPS spokeswoman said later: "We felt that Mr Bryning should have anonymity because that would improve the quality of his evidence."
Sunbeam, who described himself as a cookery book author, was convicted of common assault and fined £350 and ordered to pay prosecution costs, but was acquitted of a public order offence.
ABBEY REMOVE 7,000 UK LAWYERS FROM ITS APPROVED PANELS
Lawyers are behind the banking crisis as it is them that draw up the contracts and
it is them that should investigate investors before banks put money into their dodgy systems.
From the lawyers RAG!!!!!!!
Society in showdown at the Abbey
Meeting sought to challenge removal of solicitors from approved panels
The Law Society of Scotland aims to meet with bosses at the Abbey Bank over the bank’s decision to strike 7,000 UK solicitors from its approved panels without consultation or warning.
The Society strongly criticised the move as reducing consumer choice and creating further difficulties for already hard hit solicitors’ firms in Scotland.
Following protests from the Society and the Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW), Abbey agreed to contact affected firms to advise them on potential reinstatement to the approved panels, if they could make a case for ongoing business with the bank.
This failed to satisfy the Society. Convener of the conveyancing committee, Janette Wilson, said: “It’s vital that we meet with Abbey to express our concerns. We don’t think it is enough for the bank to reinstate solicitors only if they can prove their business case, and are planning to join LSEW at an upcoming meeting to discuss how this should be resolved.
“We want to ascertain the impact of this on Scottish conveyancers, who have already been hard hit by the serious downturn in the property market, and are urging our members to contact us if they have been affected.”
She added: “It’s also highly likely to impact on clients as the solicitor’s fee for putting the mortgage in place is normally included in the fee for the purchase. If additional solicitors have to be instructed, buyers will be charged another fee."
The Society is particularly concerned at the effect of the Abbey's actions on smaller firms in Scotland, which make up most firms in rural areas.
A successful City lawyer found dead in the Thames is feared to have committed suicide after complaining about the pressures of her work.
Catherine Bailey, a mother of three who specialised in banking and commercial law, had recently handled several corporate cases linked to the credit crunch.
And police said she had complained to her husband that she felt under pressure at work.
On Friday, the 41-year-old went missing after leaving her firm's office in the City of London, at about 2pm.
TWO CROOKED LAWYERS STRUCK OFF FOR SCREWING SICK MINERS
For so many men in family courts who lose billions to corrupt lawyers and judges, here are
two of the lowest scumbags who between them STOLE £23 million from seriously ill miners.
Two solicitors who took millions of pounds from compensation payouts given to sick miners have been struck off.
Jim Beresford and Douglas Smith, of Doncaster-based Beresfords Solicitors, had denied 11 counts of serious professional misconduct.
DE MENEZES FAMILY PROTEST OVER UK MASONIC CONTROLLED LEGAL SYSTEM
There is ONE certainty in the MURDER of Charles De Menezes, that MASONS pulled the trigger that
ended his life. From masonic UK cops, as hired assassins for the UK state, to the coroner Sir Michael
Wright, guaranteed to be a high level legal mason and there to ensure his MASONIC lodge buddy cops
don't get held responsible for the mass shooting campaign waged against him on a London tube .
Britain's masonic snipers have been giving carte blanche to shoot to kill ANYONE they deem
fit to endure their unaccountable powers. When you have the masonic protection racket of
chief constables, judges ,coroners , The IPCC (Independent police complaints commission)
INDEPENDENT they are NOT, and all to ensure any masonic cop sniper can basically get away with
The De Menezes shooting shows more clearly than any other that the British MASONIC police state
is so dangerous, that innocent victims of their ruthless thuggery WILL NEVER get justice.
Masons so clearly in charge of every aspect of British policing and legal system that corruption,fraud and MURDER
are rife when virtually all incidents of police chicanery are absolved by a masonic controlled
judicial process. This makes a mockery of the UK citizens right to have protection from dangerous
elements and satanists now controlling its direction.
The De Menezes case, above all others, shows it is now time for UK citizens to DEMAND a complete
overhaul of those masonic cops charged with the unregulated use of killing machines, and that they are
outed as nothing more than MASONIC thugs operating for a police state with only a MASONIC agenda
as its priority . ANYONE killed in the process is subsidiary to the fact that ONLY masons have
access to an arsenal of weapons, while the British public daren't go near a gun for fear of being
shot on sight by the sinister masonic snipers let loose to utterly control the UK by stealth.
Justice Secretary MacAskill turns his back on Scots injustice victims from Edinburgh ‘silent walk for justice’ What good is a Justice Secretary who turns his back on victims of injustice ? .. or let me put it another way .. what good in public life is a ‘powerful’ politician who wont even help his own people ?
These are certainly questions many will be asking today as Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill delivered a bitter blow yesterday against victims of injustice and the many ordinary Scots and people from across the world who took part in the "Silent Walk for Justice" in Edinburgh which began near Edinburgh Castle and ended at the foot of the Royal Mile at the Scottish Parliament.
The ‘silent walk for justice’ was arranged by Guje Borgesson, the mother of Annie Borgesson, who was found dead at Prestwick harbour in December 2005. Guje and Maria Jansson, Annie’s best friend have long battled for the Crown Office to give the family a Fatal Accident Inquiry in to Annie’s unexplained death, however the Crown Office have so far refused to do anything further in the case of Ms Borgesson’s death and also in a number of other unexplained deaths, some of which have been the subject of intense media scrutiny over the failings of various Scottish Police forces to property investigate what are suspicious deaths by any standards.
The participants of yesterday’s ‘Silent Walk’ expected & hoped that Mr MacAskill, or at least someone from his office would meet with them outside the Scottish Parliament at the end of their walk down Edinburgh’s Royal Mile. However, that was not to be, and to make matters worse, a spokesman for the absent Mr MacAskill claimed the Justice Secretary was "unaware of the protest" which had been widely covered in the Scottish media beforehand.
Several people today condemned Mr MacAskill for failing to meet those who gathered outside the Scottish Parliament yesterday in freezing weather to make their voices heard on the many cases of injustice in Scotland which the Scottish Government so far have done little or nothing to address.
One of those attending said "What good is a Justice Minister who isn't interested in justice and wont even come out to meet people who his own colleagues in legal circles are actually causing the injustice to ?"
Maria Jansson, one of the organisers of the ‘silent walk for justice’ commented “I truly hope that the many people that participated yesterday received new hope and strength to go on with high spirit and the feeling that we are together in this. We have all the same focus, namely to get the truth out in the open so that Justice can be done.”
“We must not judge each other, or measure or weight each other we have already been judged or measured by the authorities, and also by people. Now is the beginning of something new, for us all and by coming together we have made injustice visible, there are so many different True stories behind the many cases. Those stories, are to often forgotten in the Media coverage”
Fortunately for the rest of us, there are people who put in the effort to campaign against injustice, and Guje, Maria, and all those who attended or supported the aims of the silent walk are to be commended for their input into what must be one of Scotland’s most pressing issues – the very high level of injustice attributed to our failed Scots justice system which sadly seems to be low on the priorities of the current Justice Secretary and others in the Scottish Government.
Maria continued : “We walked together as humans, we made injustice visible, and showed every one that there are gaps in the justice system that needs to be filled.”
Its a pity though, that Mr MacAskill couldn’t manage a little bit of humanity yesterday, feigning ignorance through his spokesman of a highly publicised protest which many ordinary Scots were well aware of.
From my own experience, and I'm sure everyone would agree - those who turn their backs on the abused, the weak and those victims of injustice - all injustice, are as guilty as the abusers who cause it, and to think that not one member of staff from Mr MacAskill's office even put in a small effort to come out and receive the marchers is disgusting.
I think we can conclude quite easily Mr MacAskill has turned his backs on ordinary Scots, on victims of injustice, on those with no voice ... preferring instead to sit in Parliament and make grand statements about who he will personally protect in the monied professions, than make a small human effort to be a part of the rest of society who hope for better and fairer treatment.
Mr MacAskill can be seen attesting to a ‘great debt’ the Scottish Government owes to the legal profession.
Mr MacAskill goes further to say he will always personally protect lawyers
Surely Mr MacAskill as Justice Secretary, you owe the victims of injustice and the rest of us in Scotland who are not lawyers, a debt of service & duty too ?
It’s all about money - Kenny MacAskill said he would personally protect the legal profession, so why not help victims of injustice ?
Britains corrupt masonic Crown persecution service. Run by masons for masons enrichment and
to use and abuse everyone else who is dragged through the gutter of British courts.
Bully boys for a corrupt state that make the criminals that come before judicial masonic
lackeys pale by comparison with a Crown used to prop up the UK's ruling establishment.
The UK is being pushed back to medieval and draconian rule by a small self appointed mob
of political and legal thugs hand picked by the masonic controllers who rule, above all
other laws and rights supposedly to protect British citizens.
LAWYER BECOMES MASONIC GRANDMASTER OF NEW ZEALAND
THE CREEPY MASONIC NETWORK OF POWER SHOWS THE HOLD MASONS HAVE OVER COURTS ACROSS THE GLOBE
Surrounded by his ornately dressed brethren and the symbols of Freemasonry, Christchurch lawyer Stanley Barker was installed as the country's Grand Master last night.
Freemasons from across New Zealand and Australia and their families filled the Christchurch Town Hall to watch the pomp and ceremony involved in moving the role to Barker.
Wearing coats and tails, adorned with standard regalia of gold-decorated aprons, gauntlets, neck pieces and jewels, the Freemasons gave ritual welcomes to overseas guests.
While the public ceremony was mostly formal, outgoing Grand Master Barry McLaggan joked with visiting Australian Grand Masters about cricket, Qantas and inquired whether the visitors' wives were doing enough shopping to help the New Zealand economy.
The men saluted McLaggan 11 times by holding their hands above their heads and watched as Barker was invested with his new "powers and prerogatives".
Following a brass fanfare, Barker knelt on a velvet pillow, put his white-gloved hands on an antique Bible and swore allegiance to God and the Order.
WHY SCOTLAND'S LEGAL SYSTEM IS AN EVIL AND CORRUPT MONOPOLY
PUBLIC PETITION NO. PE1197
1. NAME OF PRINCIPAL PETITIONER
2. TEXT OF PETITION
Petition by Bill Alexander calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the legal system to adopt the Scandinavian system of allowing unrestricted access to legal representation before the court for example by allowing non-lawyers to appear in court on behalf of other parties.
3. ACTION TAKEN TO RESOLVE ISSUES OF CONCERN BEFORE SUBMITTING THE PETITION
I have campaigned since 1995 for greater access to justice for the people of Scotland and have lobbied every relevant Government department and the European Commission to attempt to have more choice and less restriction in legal representation in court.
I have been actively involved in the application by the Association of Commercial Attorneys under Sections 25 to 29 of the Law reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 and it is now clear that in the unlikely event of the application being approved, the restrictions on the areas of practice are such that there will still be a fundamental lack of choice for parties who cannot afford a solicitor or who may not want to instruct a solicitor in matters pertaining to Contract and Delict. The Access to Justice Department and the Lord President’s office have interpretated the Law Reform Act in such a manner that they do not consider that access to justice should be a determining factor in considering any application
SCOTLAND'S FIRST MINISTERS HOUSE TO BE USED FOR INJUSTICE PROTESTS
SCOTS DONT REALLY KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITHIN THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT AND THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.
WE ARE ALL BEING LULLED INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY
WHEN NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
READ THIS AND BE VERY ALARMED AT THE CONTINUING RISE OF THE LEGAL MAFIA UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE NEW POLITICAL MAFIA AND GODFATHER SALMOND
First Minister’s Bute House residence to be focus of protests against
corrupt regulation in Scots legal system
The Scottish Government’s lack of motivation to reform regulation of the corrupt Scots legal profession has led to calls for the sacking of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill,with consumer organisations and individuals promising regular protests and demonstrations outside the First Minister’s residence, other Scottish Government buildings, and the Scottish Parliament itself until something substantive is done to raise levels of consumer protection against what many see as a wicked and unjust legal system serving only itself.
Last week, the first in a series of protests was staged at Alex
Salmond’s Bute House residence, to hammer home to him personally, the fact his government is playing second fiddle to the Law Society of Scotland over the creation and running of the new, but not independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.One of the protestors outside Bute House said “Why are our own people betraying us now they are in Government ?
Some SNP Ministers such as John Swinney made great contributions to the debate and passage of legislation to reform regulation of lawyers but now they are in power, they are allowing the legal profession and the Law Society to take over the new complaints commission”Whatever happened to John Swinney MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, who was instrumental in revealing corrupt practices by the Law Society of Scotland and its top officials against victimised clients. Mr Swinney was so effective in his quest while in opposition, many believe his confrontation with Douglas Mill, led to his resignation.
John Swinney confronts Law Society Chief Exec. Douglas Mill at Holyrood, but now in power, Mr Swinney appears weak on regulatory reforms & consumer protection against crooked lawyers.
A letter was handed in by protestors to St Andrew’s House, charging that
“The recruitment of the staff of the Law Society of Scotland’s Client
Relations Office, is the single act which has the greatest effect of
undermining of trust that the public can place in the new Commission.These are the same people who caused the collapse of confidence of the public in the first place. Their conduct of complaints led to unprecedented criticism from the former Ombudsman, the Scottish Consumer Council et al. Even in the absence of their former masters, Mr. Douglas Mill and Mr. Philip Yelland, their presence in senior positions in theSLCC is entirely inappropriate given the intention of the Commission was
“restoring consumer confidence”.
Clearly, there are problems at the new ‘independent’ Scottish Legal
Complaints Commission, as I have covered before in previous articles you can read here : Justice Secretary 'lacking leadership' over independence of legal complaints commissionIt is easy to see the Law Society of Scotland, whose aim it is to retain control of regulation, have found easy bedfellows with the current administration, who have evidently allowed the Law Society to ensure its staff have the greatest say in what was to be a new independent complaints commission, sadly no longer
independent as Mr MacAskilll waved through ex Law Society Committee members and other legal profession insiders to ensure it towed the profession’s line against client complaints.
Alex Salmond – Protestors who appeared last week at Bute House
campaigning against the Law Society’s co-opting of the new Scottish
Legal Complaints Commission have been told he has no authority to help thousands of victims of the legal profession ? Surely not …
A wellplaced legal insider, who saw last week’s Bute House demonstration by victims of the legal profession, blasted the SNP for allowing the Law Society to co-opt the new Complaints Commission : “The fact it is the current Scottish Government is a minority administration which needs allies such as the legal profession to maintain it’s tenuous grasp on power, the public can forget about getting justice against large corporations, corrupt professions such as lawyers or party sponsors and donors until someone makes so much trouble things will have to change
”Quite an indictment of things as they stand then .. and little
wonder people feel they must take to the streets, even with our own
Scottish people supposedly running the Government now … but why is the legal profession being allowed to get away with murder by the SNP ?
One of the leaflets handed out by protestors at Bute House last week,
charged the Law Society of Scotland with being the “puppet master” of the Scots justice system, ensuring its own survival as regulator of the Scots legal profession at the expense of consumers and the Scots public.
The Lord President, Lord Hamilton, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and First Minister Alex Salmond all come in for criticism in the leaflet, allowing the Law Society’s very public ‘take over’ of the new Complaints Commission.Protestor
s outside Bute House : Victims of a dishonest legal profession surely have a right to know why the Scottish Government is still allowing people to be continually abused by crooked lawyers and corrupt, prejudiced regulation of the legal profession. As some point out : Is there a profitable reason for allowing the legal establishment to continue to ruin lives and continue its dictatorial approach to anything which may affect its position in public life ?
So much could be achieved and so many lives put right, by just a little
effort to heal the sins of the past .. but why is that so difficult to
enact ? How about it Alex ? make the effort and do some good ? We are all Scots now, aren’t we ?
A DeKalb attorney is facing a two-count complaint before a state ethics board that he sexually assaulted a former client and exotic dancer and had her perform private stripteases for him as a way of paying off her legal bills.
The complaint against Scott R. Erwin, who has an office on First Street and has been licensed since 1980, was filed before the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission on Sept. 7. The case is now in discovery, with the next hearing scheduled for Aug. 2. Erwin has no prior disciplinary history with the commission.
The ARDC complaint was filed after a DeKalb County grand jury in November 2003 declined to indict Erwin on sexual assault charges related to the former stripper's allegations.
Erwin told the Chronicle last week that he is not allowed to comment on the ARDC case while it is pending. His attorney in the matter also did not return a phone call for comment last week.
Our group have been heavily involved in this most serious of matters .
To explain the importance of this small piece of legislation that should have been brought in 17 years ago and to this day is still being avoided by the crooks that control Scotland.
Many of our group are unable to get representation because of being blacklisted by the Law Society of Scotland. We have made complaints against lawyers that ensures we are blocked from getting TRUSTWORTHY representation in court. We also raised this matter at the Scottish Parliament during the information gathering for a new legal bill.
The following was a question put yesterday 4 Sept 08 to the Justice Minister, a LAWYER, who as ever avoided why they have taken so long to open up rights of audience that will remove the monopoly from lawyers.
Over a year now since this legislation has been enacted.
This is along with the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission that arose from the evidence we gave at these hearings. The Law Society of Scotland trying to fill these posts with their own people in direct contradiction to the independence they should have had.
Association of Commercial Attorneys
2. David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in processing the application from the Association of Commercial Attorneys for third-party right of audience in Scotland's courts under the provisions of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. (S3O-4076)
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill): I acknowledge the attention that David Whitton has given to this issue on behalf of those who are involved, including his constituent. He has submitted previous questions and has engaged in correspondence on the matter.
Mr Whitton will know from the inquiries he has already made that the association recently clarified its status by incorporating itself as a limited company and submitted a revised draft scheme in late June. I have now completed my consideration of the association's application and, as the process requires, I have passed my views to the Lord President. I will ensure that Mr Whitton continues to be kept informed as to progress and the outcome.
David Whitton: As the cabinet secretary said, there has been correspondence between us on the matter. When he wrote to me in June, he commented that the provisions had been in place for a year. It is now over a year since the association made its application. However, there seems to have been a flurry of activity since I lodged my question last week.
Mr MacAskill said to me previously that he would judge the application on its merits, despite his prejudiced published opinion. I now ask him when the decision will be made on the vital matter of third-party representation in Scotland's courts. Can he get in touch with the Lord President's office to persuade it to get a move on as well?
Kenny MacAskill: I cannot give a definite date, as it will depend on hearing back from the Lord President's office. I advise Mr Whitton—as I did in my initial answer—that we have submitted our position to the Lord President, who will have to consider matters. I am sure that he will do so expeditiously. I am advised that he is currently on holiday—doubtless taking a well-earned rest—but I am sure that he will deal with the matter promptly on his return.
This maybe one of the BIGGEST hidden crimes across the UK.
Lawyers are fleecing people alive nevermind when they die. We have heard of many cases were dependents find the estate of their relative has been plundered and squandered by corrupt lawyers while police do NOTHING to stop this mass pilfering of dead victims assets.
Wills: why you can be cheated
THOUSANDS of people are being swindled by dishonest solicitors, legal advisers and money-grabbing relatives, according to a report on probate fraud out on Wednesday, writes David Budworth.
The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (Step), the author of the report, will be pressing ministers at a meeting on Thursday to take action.
Lord Falconer, secretary of state for constitutional affairs, has declared that, if he can be persuaded that there is a serious problem, he might introduce regulation.
Probate fraud is usually committed by solicitors, legal advisers, carers or relatives appointed to wind up an estate. They are able to commit fraud because they have access to the deceased’s property and paperwork.
It is also easy for someone who has been granted enduring power of attorney (EPA) or receivership. Both give the holder complete control over a person’s financial affairs and property before death. Receivership is invoked when the person is incapable of granting power of attorney.
Step surveyed its members, who include lawyers, accountants and bankers. Its report shows the problem is widespread. Half those who responded said they had come across cases of suspected fraud or theft from an estate, mostly in the past 12 months. Probate fraud is estimated to cost £150m a year.
Geoffrey Shindler, vice- president of Step, said: “The present system is letting down too many people. We need government action to protect beneficiaries from financial loss and emotional distress.”
The means of deception are varied and frequently ingenious. They include bogus wills, false accounting and plundering of bank accounts.
Abrupt changes to the will or unexplained withdrawals from bank accounts made not long before death might be cause for alarm. So might the transfer of large sums of money or property, or the disappearance of valuable items.
Other warning signs are the inclusion of someone else’s name on a bank account, a relative who takes over the management of the person’s finances but leaves bills unpaid, or someone who is anxious and confused about his or her finances.
Under present rules, all beneficiaries are entitled to answers to any reasonable queries, but under the English system they are not legally entitled to see the estate’s accounts.
They have to rely on the executor of the will to provide them with information, even though he or she could be the one committing the fraud.
Step wants beneficiaries to be given automatic access to all key documents, including the will and details of an estate’s accounts. It is calling for a licensing scheme, so that those found guilty of misconduct can be barred from practice.
Frank Nesbitt, a detective in the economic crime squad of Northumbria police, said: “Probate fraud is a big problem. There is no control over solicitors when they are drawing up a will or administering an estate.”
THIS IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE WESTERN WORLD .STATE LACKEY MASONIC JUDGES
MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE RIGHT OF EVERY FREE MAN TO BE JUDGED
BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS IF HE SO WISHES.
No, it is not a John Grisham novel. It is the upshot of higher court rulings in New Zealand today.
Civil jury trials have, for all practical purposes, been done away with in New Zealand. The last known case of trial by jury was Menzies v Attorney General (CIV2002 418 00005) in late 2004. The shift away from juries has occurred without any law change. Rather, it has evolved quietly, by judicial fiat. It is now routine for judges to simply rule it is 'inconvenient' to have a jury trial or ambiguously - if not spuriously - claim that civil cases are too complicated for juries, or that the law is inextricably linked to the factual issues long accepted in law as suitable for a jury determination.
While juries remain an option in criminal trials in New Zealand, they too are under serious threat. Last month, Chief High Court Justice Tony Randerson publicly blamed the increased NZ Court backlog on criminal jury trials, noting the recent large increase in Methamphetamine cases in particular. Accordingly Randerson J implored Parliament to act to relieve the backlog. Many saw this as a veiled promotion to abolish jury trials altogether. Two weeks earlier, in a 16 May 2008 publication of LawNews, recently retired District Court Judge Ron Gilbert questioned the fairness of jury trials although, paradoxically, his own experience admittedly supported the use and retention of jury trials. Why then should jury trials be abolished? The implication in that article was that jury trials delay, if not defeat, justice.
This view is in stark contrast to the crucial origins of English law. Before the Magna Carta came into existence, the King was able to rule by decree - and whim. Adjudication by one's peers of conflicts with the Crown was considered an essential ingredient to natural justice in a legal system where the King's appointments governed the Courts. Judges had inherent conflicts. The 14 year New Zealand Court battle of Keith and Margaret Berryman and their counsel Dr Rob Moodie to merely get the uncensored government report regarding the Te Rata bridge collapse into evidence proves that reasoning is as sound today as it was at any time.
Should we care that judges generally consider juries have outlived their usefulness in the New Zealand civil justice system?
Not only has the jury model worked for almost 800 years, it is widely recognized as the yardstick in distinguishing democracies from autocracies. The right to trial by jury has direct lineage to the Magna Carta, one of only three clauses which are still law - and certainly the most famous. The principle that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land is considered so fundamental to a free and just society that it resonates forcefully in the American Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
More than any other right, the right to trial by jury singularly provides a safeguard against despotic state rule. It is virtually impossible to overstate the importance to democracy of this judicial safeguard.
We believe overwhelmingly as a people that democracy is safe in New Zealand. Yet, in one fell swoop last year, New Zealand Courts ordered 17 citizens held without bail as terrorists while suppressing the 'evidence' that purported to prove they deserved to be imprisoned ahead of trial. Fortunately, in that case, sustained public protests were followed by a change of heart by the Solicitor General. Sure, this was a criminal proceeding where those accused could still, eventually, elect to a jury trial when the Court got around to trying them. The most alarming aspect is more than one judge not only got it terribly wrong in depriving an essential liberty but also single-handedly had the authority to suppress the evidence which would have revealed how wrong they got it. We all know how prevalent suppression orders are in NZ Court cases. Prudence alone dictates not putting such absolute power in the hands of one individual and then trusting that judge to summarize the case completely, no matter how clever and legally qualified they are.
In New Zealand, it is section 19A of the Judicature Act (the section which actually allows for certain civil proceedings to be tried by jury) which is most commonly relied on by lawyers to seek denial of the right to jury trial. In subsection (5) it states:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case where notice is given as aforesaid requiring any civil proceedings to be tried before a jury, if it appears to a Judge before the trial-
(a)That the trial of the civil proceedings or any issue therein will involve mainly the consideration of difficult questions of law; or [underline added]
(b)That the trial of the civil proceedings or any issue therein will require any prolonged examination of documents or accounts, or any investigation in which difficult questions in relation to scientific, technical, business, or professional matters are likely to arise, being an examination or investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury,-
the Judge may, on the application of either party, order that the civil proceedings or issue be tried before a Judge without a jury.
The Courts have generously interpreted subsection 5(a) to include virtually any discussion of law as justification of a judge alone trial.
As to 5(b), judicial reasoning in successful applications for judge alone trials gives the general sense that every judge considers he or she personally has more technical, business or scientific knowledge than twelve random citizens in aggregate.
Remember 'Mt Erebus'? Remember the Winebox scandal? Along with the Berryman case these cases demonstrate, even in high profile cases where there is considerable media scrutiny, judges can and do succumb to undue influences. For every Winebox or Erebus, scores of cases wither under the public radar, becoming mere footnotes in the legal lexicon by virtue of judicial decrees that purport to accurately summarize the case as they primarily justify the judicial position taken by the judge. This may be fine where the judge's objectivity is not compromised and where they have no personal connection with any of the litigants. But this is New Zealand. Because we are a small country we have been indoctrinated to, firstly, accept judges can hardly avoid knowing one of the parties in many cases and, secondly, trust our judges are accustomed to presiding in such cases and therefore accustomed to putting aside their innate human bias when allies do appear before them. You can add to the mix that lawyers are forbidden from publicly criticizing judicial decisions. When cries do arise that judges fictionalized some critical facts, most likely by one of the litigants, the tendency of the public is to instinctively dismiss such claims as sour grapes.
Defamation cases, in particular, highlight how far the Courts have regressed in law on the right to jury trials. By definition, defamation is a factual determination based upon what meanings the ordinary person attributes to words used - and pointedly not what one judge who is taught to argue the meanings of words on the head of a pin thinks. But even in these cases, where a jury determination would seem a foregone conclusion, the Courts have intervened to prevent this from occurring. In July 2006, Television New Zealand appealed a High Court decision denying them a trial by jury as defendants in defamation proceedings to the Court of Appeal (TVNZ Ltd. v Haines and ors  NZCA 243 (6 September 2006). In a ruling by Susan Glazebrook J on behalf of the appellate panel, a trial by judge alone was upheld on the premise that "the issues of law are tightly intertwined with the facts at each stage of the inquiry." In ruling so, the Appeal Court appeared to condone taking obvious cases out of the hands of juries simply because the judge might otherwise need to give the jury careful instructions on the legal issues - something which has always been considered customary practice. This Court of Appeal precedent undeniably gave trial judges greater discretion to prevent jury trials.
Few would argue that the best laws are the simplest ones that are unambiguous. This gives the judge little wiggle room to impose his personal discretion over the intent and function of the law. The writer submits that the defamation law giving the defendant the right to trial by jury is one such area. Yet we have seen that other factors can be and have been introduced successfully to thwart a jury trial. In a 2005 defamation case Receiver Michael Stiassny brought against businessman Vince Siemer (CIV2005 404 1808), Stiassny's lawyers argued that because Stiassny was asking for a permanent injunction (not simply a factual finding and a monetary award), Siemer should be denied a trial by jury. Moreover, without debate over what the words meant or were intended to mean - or merely knowing the exact documents which would be relied on by the plaintiff at trial - Justice Rodney Hansen took a page out of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass to effectively declare as Humpty Dumpty did " When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" . To illustrate how damaging this cavalier approach can be, remember it was Court of Appeal Judge Robert Chambers who caused a mistrial in the Richard Sturm sexual violation case in 2006 when he instructed a jury to disregard any meaning they might attribute to the word 'stupifying' other than his own.
The Hansen J judgment in the Stiassny case is now on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
As is the case with Queen's Counsels and powerful insolvency practitioners, Police often get gratuitous treatment from Judges. Perhaps this is why when a mere law-abiding citizen had his home broken into by Police, then attacked in his own home, pepper sprayed and arrested on false charges five years ago, he sought a jury trial in the Auckland High Court case he brought against the Police Officers (Gregory v Police and othrs CIV2005 404 3485). At first blush it seemed a quintessential jury matter; the case consisted of factual determinations and monetary damages were the only remedy sought. Nonetheless, two judges agreed with Police objections to a jury trial - in favour of judge alone - and the plaintiff has again appealed these rulings to the Court of Appeal (due to be heard in October 2008). Perhaps worse, the Associate Judge and Judge in the High Court made dismissive comments about this being a mere case of mistaken identity. Police Officers may have greater responsibility inherent with their increased powers but judges as a group are loath to concede Police may be guilty of misconduct or malice.
By way of an example, anyone who has read the Police affidavit in support of the nationwide 'terrorist raids' last October would be amazed at what flimsy 'evidence' Police used to get Court approval for the extensive search warrants and occupations. Ironically, while the terrorist charges have been dropped, and weapons charges brought instead against a few, the New Zealand Court has ruled this police affidavit which set off massive invasions and hysteria throughout the Country is still off-limits to the public - and those citizens discussing what the Police actually maintained in the affidavit can themselves be locked up for contempt.
New Zealanders lost the Privy Council as a right for appeals in 2004. With the establishment of the New Zealand Supreme Court, New Zealanders must now put their faith in the same home-grown lawyers who have acted as judge and jury in our civil proceedings. This is increasingly the case as the right to jury trial is surrendered. Since the Supreme Court was formed, independence and impartiality of the nascent entity has been the subject of many private, and sometimes heated, debates among the nation's lawyers. Whatever side you take in this debate, it is wise to analyse the decisions coming out of this final arbiter in New Zealand to understand the direction this new court is taking us. Most importantly, is it a road to natural justice? On the issue of trial by jury, it is worthwhile to look at the recent appeal of Vince Siemer v Robert Fardell QC and the Highest Court in the Land's response (SC 93/2007  NZSC 9). Both can be found on the web at http://www.newzealandjustice.com #
Banks ,lawyers and CROWN judges determined to throw as many victims of corrupt mortgage systems
out on the street. The ownership of land and property is an outrage in the UK, with vested interests
in repossession more important than stable housing.
This a maybe the biggest financial racket created
by three of the greediest professions in Britain.The British crown that owns one sixth of the worlds
land mass heading the crime wave.
MacAskill paves the way in parliament for ‘Tesco law’
A shakeup of the legal system which could lead to supermarkets and banks offering legal services moved forward yesterday with the start of a debate in the Scottish Parliament.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said that legislation, dubbed Tesco Law, will be introduced in parliament to establish alternative business structures in the legal profession as soon as possible.
The move follows pressure from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) amid concerns that restrictions on working practices, including barring partnerships with non-legal firms, did not benefit customers.
Scottish lawyers last month backed the changes which have long been called for by the Scottish Consumer Council.
There have been worries about regulation of legal services however, with politicians raising fears during an earlier discussion last year.
Speaking in parliament yesterday Mr MacAskill told MSPs: "I am fully aware that members expressed concerns during the November debate that effective regulation was key to safeguarding consumers and the profession alike.
"This is not about Tesco law', as some have defined it. It is about allowing the profession to grow and compete, while maintaining quality of service to the public and the core values of the profession."
Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have consulted their members and produced policy papers outlining their vision for the future.
Mr MacAskill stressed that there was still work required to "iron out the detail" of many of the issues to devise solutions for the Scottish market place. "Although there are differences of approach between the law society and the faculty, I am delighted that we have taken the first steps towards reform," he added.
He said that Scottish firms will continue to serve local communities, but he added: "Some firms can compete internationally and, I think, globally. The success of our accounting and financial services sector demonstrates this is possible. There is no reason why law cannot do likewise."
The OFT called for a review following a so-called super-complaint by consumer group Which? that the current set-up hinders market innovation.
At present, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers or be employed by non-legal firms to give advice direct to the public. The changes could lead to external ownership or capital for law firms, and partnerships between solicitors and non solicitors.
Welcoming the move, Sarah O'Neill, legal officer of the Scottish Consumer Council, said: "We have been arguing for this for a long time. We think it is in the interests of the consumer in terms of increasing choice and reducing prices."
Richard Henderson, president of the Law Society of Scotland, was more cautious. He said: "It's a very complex issue and there has been a great deal of thought and discussion surrounding alternative business structures. It's clear from the profession's response that there is appetite for change."
Similar legislation is being introduced in England and Wales.
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 10:37am today
Our group played a major part in EXPOSING the appalling manner our legal system presently operates .
We instigated the initial complaints to the Office of Fair Trading prior to the WHICH supercomplaint.
We provided both oral and written evidence in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid bill at
We have yet to see the impact on this new body and a complaint has been made to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland for the filling of the posts with people supposedly "LAY" persons when in fact they are mostly all connected in one way or another with the legal CLUB of Scotland.
Many Scots unaware that if they enter a Scottish court at present before all these changes take place they are likely to be fleeced of their homes,business's ,assets and children.It is only US the victims and our group alone have lost millions in Scottish courts ,that have campaigned for many years to EXPOSE the utter corruption that is disguised as a form of legal system.
Scotland legal parasites have been getting away with absolute murder destroying thousands upon thousands of lives using their illegal MONOPOLY and a master policy that ensures virtually NO ONE can get recompense never mind representation when a legal parasite fleeces you of your lifes work.
This is only the start of the urgent and major changes required to redress the enormous imbalance in how scottish courts operate.
Only a JUST court system can we create a real democracy to challenge our government .This is NOT possible as the system presently stands.
Try getting a lawyer to sue another lawyer or a government department ,you will quickly come up against a brick wall and may face a persecution network were you are maliciously dragged through the courts to TEACH you a lesson about NOT complaining about legal parasites trying to destroy your life.
A solicitor has admitted hiding a video camera inside a ladies' toilet cubicle and secretly filming female staff.
Stirling Sheriff Court heard that Peter Fitzpatrick, 49, put the device into a cardboard box within the cubicle at law firm Muirhead Buchanan in Stirling.
The father-of-two, who has been a solicitor for 27 years, was caught after a secretary noticed a hole in the box was pointing at the pedestal.
America's Corrupt Legal System - Danger to Visitors, Travellers as Well as USA Residents
by Dr Les Sachs
The tragic reality of the world's biggest corrupt legal system
America's rigged courts, bribed judges, fake and phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2.2 million prisoners in the USA gulag.
Why USA "justice" is not like in Hollywood movies, and why YOU could be the next victim on USA territory - innocent and sent to prison, or strapped to a table and put to death; or robbed of your life savings by American lawyers.
Why YOU can be tortured, have your freedom and rights taken away, and why people in America are afraid to help you, or even tell what happened to you.
Right now, about 1 out of every 45 working age males in the US (that is, not counting children or the elderly) are BEHIND BARS inside the US empire - Many of those millions of US prisoners are innocent. Maybe YOU are next.
The recent pattern of American violations of international law are ultimately based in the corruption of the USA domestic legal system. Phony USA courts are very dangerous even for travellers and visitors to America, who can easily wind up among the USA's more than 2 million prisoners, or lose all their family's possessions to corrupt American lawyers.
All world citizens should know how the corrupt USA legal system, is a danger to every traveller, visitor, and guest worker from overseas, and to every individual who takes the risky step of entering upon American territory. Just ask the overseas families of prisoners who were put to death inside the USA, with their embassies never even being informed that they were arrested - or the many foreign people serving hugely long prison terms in America, after they were jailed on flimsy tainted "evidence" from criminal snitches.
The reality is that the United States of America, which proclaims itself the "land of freedom", has the most dishonest, dangerous and crooked legal system of any developed nation. Legal corruption is covering America like a blanket.
The corruption of the USA legal system is well-known, but also well-hidden, by the news services of America's corporate-owned media. The US media companies are afraid both of reprisal, and of the social revolution that would come from exposing the truth.
Here is what the US media companies know, but are afraid to tell you about American "justice".
The law’s an ass: Mr Kessell says his solicitor ruined him
THE claim that family lawyers are overpaid (Letters) is only half the problem — it’s generally almost universally accepted that most lawyers, especially barristers, are grossly overpaid. The simple fact is that the legal profession is virtually unregulated. This is true of any profession that professes to regulate itself, but the legal establishment is in the best position in that it helps to make the laws it dispenses and then regulates its own members. Along with thousands of similar victims, I was ruined by an incompetent solicitor, and although I took my suit through the official solicitors’ complaints procedure, Crown Court and subsequently to appeal, I finally lost my case, along with everything I owned.
The legal profession seems to admit blame only in cases (and there are many of these) where the lawyers have been involved in some act of criminality. Judged by a panel of their peers, the guilty are swiftly struck off and abandoned to the criminal courts, where they can be conveniently described as ‘former’ solicitors before being given prison sentences. Their victims are compensated in full for any financial loss — but there is no such justice if a lawyer is simply incompetent. The profession abounds with thousands of useless lawyers who are able to continue to cause havoc, knowing they can rarely be exposed. The judge in my case found my lawyer guilty of ‘specific and cumulative breaches of his retainer’, but added that these breaches ‘hadn’t amounted to negligence’.
I lost my business and house. Successive governments have confronted other professions which present easier targets. Teachers have been subjected to much legislation and doctors have had their terms of service changed. But almost half of all the members of the House of Commons, and a quarter of the Lords, are former lawyers or are still practising. Lawyers make brilliant politicians because their legal training has schooled them in dealing in factual inexactitudes. These people aren’t likely to agree to any move to regulate the legal profession — though such a move is long overdue.