Seaborne transport was one of the earliest channels of commerce, and rules for resolving disputes involving maritime trade were developed early in recorded history. Early historical records of these laws include the Rhodian law (of which no primary written specimen has survived, but which is alluded to in other legal texts: Roman and Byzantine legal codes) and later the customs of the Hanseatic League. In southern Italy the Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris (1063) at Trani and the Amalfian Laws were in effect from an early date. Islamic law also made major contributions to international admiralty law, departing from the previous Roman and Byzantine maritime laws in several ways. These included Muslim sailors being "paid a fixed wage "in advance" with an understanding that they would owe money in the event of desertion or malfeasance, in keeping with Islamic conventions" in which contracts should specify "a known fee for a known duration", in contrast to Roman and Byzantine sailors who were "stakeholders in a maritime venture, in as much as captain and crew, with few exceptions, were paid proportional divisions of a sea venture's profit, with shares allotted by rank, only after a voyage's successful conclusion".

Muslim jurists also distinguished between "coastal navigation, or cabotage", and voyages on the "high seas", and they also made shippers "liable for freight in most cases except the seizure of both a ship and its cargo". Islamic law also "departed from Justinian's Digest and the Nomos Rhodion Nautikos in condemning slave jettison", and the Islamic Qirad was also a precursor to the European commenda limited partnership. The "Islamic influence on the development of an international law of the sea" can thus be discerned alongside that of the Roman influence.

Admiralty law was introduced into England by Eleanor of Aquitaine while she was acting as regent for her son, King Richard the Lionheart. She had earlier established admiralty law on the island of Oleron (where it was published as the Rolls of Oleron) in her own lands (although she is often referred to in admiralty law books as "Eleanor of Guyenne"), having learned about it in the eastern Mediterranean while on a Crusade with her first husband, King Louis VII of France. In England, special admiralty courts handle all admiralty cases. These courts do not use the common law of England, but are civil law courts largely based upon the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian.

Admiralty courts were a prominent feature in the prelude to the American Revolution. For example, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury" refers to the practice of Parliament giving the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce The Stamp Act in the American Colonies. Because the Stamp Act was unpopular, a colonial jury was unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. However, because admiralty courts did not (as is true today) grant trial by jury, a colonist accused of violating the Stamp Act could be more easily convicted by the Crown.

Admiralty law became part of the law of the United States as it was gradually introduced through admiralty cases arising after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Many American lawyers who were prominent in the American Revolution were admiralty and maritime lawyers in their private lives. Those included are Alexander Hamilton in New York and John Adams in Massachusetts.

In 1787 Thomas Jefferson, who was then ambassador to France, wrote to James Madison proposing that the U.S. Constitution, then under consideration by the States, be amended to include "trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land [as opposed the law of admiralty] and not by the laws of Nations [i.e. not by the law of admiralty]". The result was the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were both admiralty lawyers and Adams represented John Hancock in an admiralty case in colonial Boston involving seizure of one of Hancock's ships for violations of Customs regulations. In the more modern era, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was an admiralty lawyer before ascending to the federal bench.

  • The British monarchy exposed once again as world's biggest despot
    For anyone who has been a victim of the law they must be wondering why it takes a minimum of 5 years study at university to gain a degree in law? This seems incredible in that 'JUSTICE' is relatively straightforward and simple. Why has 'JUSTICE' got to be simple ? Justice is decided by ordinary members of the public from every walk of life selected for jury duty. Whether you're a cleaner or professor being on a jury means you have to decide from the evidence if someone is innocent or guilty of a crime. You cannot have a system of 'JUSTICE' that is complex and hard to understand when someone with average or below average I.Q. is charged in a jury to decide on the guilt of a person in the dock. If it was to complex then decisions made would not provide real 'JUSTICE'.

    Now we return to why , if 'JUSTICE' is simple and straight forward how anyone has to spend years studying the rule of 'LAW' as opposed to ensuring we all get 'JUSTICE'? Many of us have been victims of 'LAW' or a 'LAW' that is conceived and masquerades as some sort of legal system, that is really a smokescreen for a modern day version of feudal theft. Lawyers studying at university learn the art of the 'craft' of law. The deviously manipulative legislation they create with their political friends that manufacture 'LAWS' that only they understand to their enormous financial advantage. We hear everyday about cases that breach 'MONOPOLY' powers in courts or tribunals consisting of lawyers and judges deciding on the merits of 'COMPETITION LAW'. No coincidence those who have manipulated our legal system into deciding on 'MONOPOLY' powers are themselves the biggest 'MONOPOLY' of all. The legal mafia have a complete monopoly of buying and selling property, business's and land. A country's people have never sanctioned monopoly legal systems, these devious mobsters have convinced us to give them powers they have NEVER had any right to hold in the first place and sanctioned by the ruling elite and their masonic goons who ensure the serfs don't have a clue what's going on. That 'LAW' serving only the interests of those who abuse us while ensuring the ruling elite do not suffer financially from its enforcement. The Queen of England has been heavily protected by her judicial goons form of 'LAW' enforcement for far to long.

    'LAW' as imposed by these legal gangsters is how they can extort as much money from you, as their system has NOTHING to do with 'JUSTICE' but everything to do with massive 'INJUSTICE' . Some examples of how this has caused the breakdown in society, and we have more than enough victims to show how our world is being utterly destroyed by their form of 'LAW', can be seen when lawyers defend serial criminals. They are the lifeblood and cash cow of greedy lawyers milking legal aid to continually defend serial criminals who along with dodgy judges decide punishments that never fit the crime.The lucrative gravy train of legal aid can only self perpetuate if serial criminals are given relatively little punishment so they can get back onto the streets creating more crime and who then require to be defended once again by lawyers who eat out of the legal aid honey pot like there is no tomorrow. The biggest victims of this system are heterosexual men in divorce. Divorce is another 'MONOPOLY' lawyers have given themselves to ensure the spoils of a marriage end up in their coffers. The marriage certificate you sign in a church or registry office NEVER has the small print that ultimately gives lawyers powers over an estate you may have built up over a lifetime of hard graft. A few A4 paper shuffles can enrich lawyers and their clients when crooked judges , NOT JURIES, decide on the outcome of a divorce. This is maybe the single biggest criminal racket in the history of the world and while we are distracted by endless terrorist threats from foreign enemies, the real enemies of the people are the legal mafia silently destroying people's lives on a grand scale.

    When a woman enters a lawyers office seeking advice on divorcing her husband, if she is not bitter and twisted at the onset she will soon be psychologically manipulated to become one, as without endless lies and defamation conjured up by lawyers milking the legal aid system they could NOT justify the vast plundering of men's estates as is going on at the present time. The domestic abuse industry is funded behind the scenes by legal groups and the state who have a vested industry in stripping victims . The brutality of the divorce industry , that has NOTHING to do with 'JUSTICE' and everything to do with 'LAW' conjured up and manufactured by judges, law societies and their lawyer goons and who all ultimately answer to the Inns of court in London , can only be fully understood when faced with some of the most devious and dangerous mind games ever designed. Is it any wonder male suicide is rife when 'JUSTICE' is of little relevance to those who use 'LAW' to help themselves to our life's work. Maybe the most sinister aspect of their dodgy court process's are how children are being stolen on a grand scale using similar exaggerated claims of abuse and were vast sums are made available to council social workers and courts to steal children away from good parents caught up in the malicious claims manufactured by the legal mafia and who can rifle many years of legal aid supposedly protecting 'vulnerable' children who are in fact made extremely vulnerable when taken into care and into the hands of the abusers found within the care system and the many dodgy adoption agencies that claim to protect children when they are the biggest abusers of all.

    Men in divorce find themselves being forcibly removed from their children using the most abhorrent lies and deceit and there are many examples of lawyers manufacturing allegations to increase their legal aid funding. This is far more common than the media would have us believe. Once removed from the biological fathers protection , allegations are then made against the mother to ensure children can be removed into care and lost forever in the seedy and dangerously perverted world of the legal mafia who have a long history of fetishes that include pseudo masochism and bondage and why so many of those same judges who pass judgement happen to be patrons of the many homes these children find themselves in. We have a legal system founded on fraud, corruption, blackmail and creepy sexual deviants who are so psychologically disturbed they think they can get away with all of this indefinitely while anyone daring to stand up against their evil practices are given maximum attention and were they use bully boy thug cops and bailiffs to try and make our lives a misery. Fortunately many of their victims now have a platform , previously unavailable thanks to the complicity of a mass media that pampers to their requirements and provides grossly distorted views of their 'LAW' while failing to expose the complete lack of 'JUSTICE' the system creates.






    The ruling elite have abandoned the Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury using hand picked masonic judicial thugs to take charge of our estates using civil laws they make up as they go along. There is a complete corrupt worldwide monopoly on purchasing land, business and property that is controlled by lawyers and the bar associations who all answer to the Inns of court in London. They are controlled by the United Grand Lodge of England who act for and on behalf of the Queen who owns at least one sixth of the world's land mass at the last count.

    All of that land stolen in the British Empires rape and pillage of the world but more recently by her judicial lackeys ignoring the Magna Carta and seizing homes and assets through secret star chamber courts. The vast bulk of the world's problems are primarily due to this sinister use of arcane laws to seize assets by that ruling elite. The judiciary operate primarily for the less than 10% of the population who own more than 90% of the world's resources. Only a revolution can get rid of the ruling NWO mafia who are destroying lives on a grand scale for their utter greed and the tyranny they presently operate for their own self-enrichment.
    Our group will be videoing events inside the House of Commons on wednesday at a meeting of victims of the legal system. This may lead to grand juries allocated to decide on malfeasance by the judiciary , lawyers and cops against the victims of their criminality.

    Below is a copy of a letter which will be signed by everyone attending in which the police will be challenged in writing on their failings. It is easy to be negative about the outcomes of these events and what it will lead to but we have NEVER had any doubt the crooks running the show must be stopped by whatever means we possibly can before any more lives are destroyed using their persecution campaigns.

    As we all know anyone targeted for asset stripping and child theft also has to cope with despicable harassment and persecution from the cops who are part and parcel of the bullyboy network operating across the UK , that we have always intended to EXPOSE and eradicate by continued campaigning.

    July 21 2010
    Requesting Compliance with The Rule of Law.
    House of Commons Committee Room 14, 21Juiy 2010
    Formal Complaint:

    Conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice. Malicious Prosecution. Discrimination:
    Police persecution of Individual whilst Concealing Offences of favored Individual.

    Chief Superintendent Don Spiller.
    Area Commander. North Cumbria BCD HQ.
    Brunel Way Durran Hill.
    Carlisle Cumbria. CA! 3NQ.

    Your Ref. DS/YLSI IM.

    Dear Chief Supt. Spiller.

    I am attending the meeting above and I will be posting this COMPLAINT from the House of Commons 21 July.2010.

    The attendees of this meeting are All victims of serious criminal offences by Solicitors, Judges, Civil Servants, and others who appear to be given police protection from due process of the Law. We believe the Police are accomplices and accessories to these offences and by gross negligence of their duties in The Office of Constable thefts and frauds are now endemic in our Country.

    It is our intention to establish the fact that the police are not only grossly negligent but actualy involved in these thefts & frauds by their failure to investigate reported incidents by Omission that is assisting offenders by the deliberate inactivity of their sworn duty.

    To be observed by the following. attendees :

    You don't have to be a liberal bedwetter to be disturbed by the techniques described in Physical Control in Care.

    This document, approved by the Ministry of Justice and kept secret until its disclosure was forced under Freedom of Information laws, describes the methods used to subdue unruly children in privately run jails. “Use an inverted knuckle into the trainee's sternum and drive inward and upward,” is one suggestion. “Continue to carry alternate elbow strikes to the young person's ribs until a release is achieved,” is another. For advanced learners, there's the face/balls karate poke: “Drive straight fingers into the young person's face, and then quickly drive the straightened fingers of the same hand downwards into the young person's groin area.” These are known in the trade as “pain-compliant techniques”. That's a fancy way to describe beating up children as young as 12. A spokesman for the Children's Rights Alliance describes this as “state authorisation of institutionalised child abuse”.

    Teachers are at pains to avoid making physical contact with students yet for criminal kids the Government is providing a manual for private contractors on how to hurt them into obedience. Is that civilised? 2008's Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings — under pressure following the deaths of teenagers Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood — did nevertheless report: “We accept that the pain-compliant techniques ... will have to remain.” The argument here is that these are disturbed kids, and that only in extreme circumstances will such techniques be used. Unfortunately, evidence of systematic oversight is scant. That 2008 review warned: “The phrase good order and discipline' may be acceptable in legislation, but in more general use, and particularly in guidance to staff, there is a risk of its being misunderstood as meaning simple compliance with staff wishes.”

    Across the UK's four secure training centres, restraint was used 1,776 times in the 12 months to March 2009. And to get a sense of how appropriate the restraint cultures of different institutions may be to inmates, we can turn to an essay in the Prison Service's journal. “Theoretically, the decision to place a child within a particular establishment is determined by their age, gender, geographical location, and decisions regarding their vulnerability,” wrote Kate Gooch, of Birmingham Law School. “In practice, the process is more accurately described as a lottery'.” This could be your child getting “twisted up”. So if we're going to sanction deliberately hurting children we need to be very clear about when, how and why we're doing it. That the Government for five years resisted this document's publication — even refusing a copy to the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee — deserves our contempt.

    feltham Brutal book: Officers at youth prisons, such as HMP Young Offenders' Institution in Feltham (left), were given guidelines on how to restrain children as young as 12

    A secret manual detailing techniques on how to purposely inflict pain on young offenders in privately run jails was made public today. Some of the measures employed in the secure training centres, detailed in the 'instructor's manual', include ramming knuckles into ribs and raking shoes down the shins.

    The contents of the manual were revealed after the Youth Justice Board (YJB) agreed to hand over the document earlier this month. It includes descriptions of 'distraction' techniques, which deliberately inflict pain. The Observer detailed some of the techniques, such as placing an 'inverted knuckle into the trainee's sternum and drive inward and upward.' Another practice reads: 'Continue to carry alternate elbow strikes to the young person's ribs until a release is achieved.' Shockingly, another instructs: 'Drive straight fingers into the young person's face, and then quickly drive the straightened fingers of the same hand downwards into the young person's groin area.' The revelation of details in the manual comes after a five-year freedom of information battle.

    Published by the HM Prison Service in 2005 and classified as a restricted government document, the manual instructs staff on restraint and self-defence techniques to be used on unruly children as young as 12. The techniques are often accompanied by chilling warnings of their long-term affects. One comes with the warning that it may result in a 'fracture to the skull', while another may result in 'temporary or permanent blindness caused by a rupture to eyeball or detached retina'.

    On applying a head hold technique, the manual says: 'If breathing is compromised the situation ceases to be a restraint and becomes a medical emergency.' Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) officials said the YJB initially appealed against an order by the Information Commissioner in December 2009 that the document be given to them. The CRAE called for the Justice Secretary to order an independent judicial inquiry to examine the regimes of these private child prisons going back to 1998.

    Carolyne Willow, national co-ordinator of the CRAE told the paper: 'The manual is deeply disturbing and stands as a state authorisation of institutionalised child abuse.' A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the techniques were used 'very infrequently'. She explained: 'For young people under 18, the use of restraint is a last resort. 'But where young people's behaviour puts themselves or others at serious risk, staff need to be able to intervene effectively, to protect the safety of all involved.'

    The Government is totally corrupt and uses the courts, police, inland revenue, customs and excise, local government as enforcement goons. You are secretly enslaved by the monarchy, and please remember they have had hundreds of years of control to practice and refine their technique.

    Democracy, law, justice are just devices to fool and con you into compliance, in fact you are just a busy bee collecting honey for the queen’s agents to steal

    Wake up.

    This list is for the authorities to know how many citizens know the truth, who the trouble-makers are (activists, realists, victims). In truth they are shit scared the internet cum 'tinternet' has blown their cover. And what’s more they are to fecking late the cat’s out of the bag! For those who know!

    Because of their arrogance and old boys networks, they now realise the old boys they relied on have been gently screwing them for years and now we have a financial collapse. One thing you should know: money does not disappear. It buys property and assets. Where is it? After all, we keep honey in jars! Where is the stolen money now!

    rule of law Dear Coalition Government, CONGRATULATIONS on this initiative!

    You will see on our petition “Stop the Oppression of the British people” HERE that its popularity has grown to over 1,100 signatures and 5,000 page views since March 2010.

    The comments collated from signers on HERE express the Zeitgeist excellently and will tell you that self-regulation does not work. The legal profession and the Courts’ administration need to comply with the Rule of Law. Lord Bingham summarised what the Rule of Law means HERE. We have written to the Lord Chancellor pointing out the abuse of Her Majesty’s seal.

    We have written to the Ministry of State The Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP about false documents being produced to create fraudulent bankruptcies. However, our hand delivered, stamped and signed letter went missing, after we were promised it would be put into the Ministerial Box the same day (May 27, 2010).

    As you will find from reading the comments, the time is ripe for change. Thanks for making it happen by telling your civil servants and public employees to comply with the Rule of Law!

    And this in the box “Why is your idea important?”

    Because white collar crime has ensured that thousands of people

    1. are robbed of their homes and businesses

    2. are denied Legal Aid

    3. don’t get adequate representation or help

    4. are treated as less than humans when they end up as “vexatious litigant” or, worse, sectioned

    5. have been robbed of their pensions or industrial compensations.


    Tax chief is Whitehall's dinner winner

    The country's most senior tax official is the most wined and dined mandarin in Whitehall. Dave Hartnett, 59, the Permanent Secretary for Tax at HM Revenue and Customs, accepted invitations to eat and drink 107 times in the past three years, according to a survey of 172 senior civil servants carried out by researchers at City University. Mr Hartnett was entertained by some of Britain's biggest banks, law firms and accountancy firms. A spokesman at HMRC said Mr Hartnett was entertained on average once every two weeks over the three-year period.

    He said: "Dave Hartnett engages with many people from all sectors of the economy in meetings which take place inside and outside office hours. "The relationships that Dave has forged have enabled HMRC to transform its relationships with business and other taxpayers."

  • Dave Hartnett short biography
  • The lawlessness of the law
    devil judge One of the main centre's of world control of wealth and power can be found at the Inns of Court in London. From this central point runs a massive world wide network who's tentacles encompass the globe devouring and plundering from an unsuspecting public and devoid of legality along with the enormous harm these scum bags and vermin are doing to society as a whole.

    ALL bar associations worldwide answer to the masonic mafia running Temple bar and the Inns of Court where the scorpions of death operate a global conspiracy through the utter arrogant greed of a Crown that has highjacked JUSTICE and replaced it with tyranny. Anyone who has faced courts either in the UK or elsewhere across the globe where this mafia operates, will know the ease with which they can remove your lifes work at the stroke of a masonic judicial pen .

    Juries have all but disappeared in civil courts as the masons ensure the only thugs who will be deciding your fate , after you have been dragged into their torture chambers , are those they have indoctrinated with their satanic rituals , ensuring the masonic coffers are a bottomless pit filling up with the money they are stealing in a manufactured legalese NOT written in stone but in sand that is blown away every time it suits their corrupt needs. Through their media lawyers and judicial libel laws they have tightly controlled much of the media across the globe that is already owned and controlled by the Zionists who are not only the media owners but also the lawyers and judges who are deciding your fate.

    This is a tightly closed network of power using a small self appointed elite who with their paper shuffling techniques, have a virtual monopoly of the global housing market were they first sell you one , then seize it when you are least expecting it, or otherwise distracted while trying to also stop them from seizing your children . Children that are then sent to the homes and adopters who are part of their satanic ritual network used to ensure their duped goons can be blackmailed into carrying out these atrocities that encircle the globe. For the uninitiated into this satanic HELLHOLE of abuse it may seem improbable or nigh impossible that this could be going on right under our noses. However once you have tasted this EVIL and seen how over 100's of years they have been getting away with MURDER with little or no recording of their heinous crimes, you will see how they have been able to cover their tracks and defied virtually every means to EXPOSE their brutal regime.

    However technology has advanced enough to give their VICTIMS a platform and our group are at the forefront of exposing their crimes despite endless attacks on our network that has been targeted many times over the years. They are desperate to SHUT DOWN anyone that has latched onto exactly how they operate their stings and desperate to avoid exposure of the devious ways they use to hide this enormous conspiracy. Fortunately our group have some of the best legal brains, internet techies and activists across the globe who have paid heavily in persecution for daring to challenge attacks on their lives by these utter scum bags who hide behind this evil using robes, regalia and finery.


    marie stubbs A CELEBRITY headmistress claimed £200,000 for appearing as an expert witness for a school being sued by a pupil left brain-damaged in a hammer attack by classmates.

    Marie Stubbs, whose career was dramatised in a film starring Julie Walters, charged the fee for writing a 30-page report assessing the school’s health and safety policies and for a three-day court appearance. Henry Webster, now 18, was left for dead with a fractured skull on a tennis court at the Ridgeway school in Wroughton, near Swindon in Wiltshire, three years ago, after being repeatedly beaten with the claw end of a hammer. The bloody attack by an Asian gang, condemned as racist, was described by a lawyer as “like something out of a Quentin Tarantino film”.

    Four pupils and a further nine youths summoned from outside the school to beat Webster were convicted for their part in the assault, with Wasif Khan, then 18, who wielded the hammer, sentenced to eight years in prison in 2008. Webster had been hoping to win £1m compensation from the school for its failure to protect him from the unprovoked attack by strangers who had entered school premises. Earlier this month, however, he was told his civil claim had failed because the judge found no evidence the school could have foreseen the attack or prevented it. Now his family has been told their insurance will not cover the costs of the six-week court case, which, including Stubbs’s fee, will top £800,000.

    Stubbs’s fee has yet to be formally approved at a costs hearing. It has highlighted the anomalies of the expert witness industry, which has seen a growing queue of professionals giving opinions in court proceedings. There is no limit to the fees that can be claimed and no requirement for experts to be vetted or trained. Stubbs, 71, has won acclaim for her inspirational teaching of inner-city children. She is credited with reviving the fortunes of St George’s school in Maida Vale, west London, where the headmaster, Philip Lawrence, was stabbed to death in 1995. Ahead of the Class, her book describing her stint as head teacher there in 2000-01, became the subject of a television drama broadcast on the 10th anniversary of Lawrence’s death. Last week, Stubbs said the payment had been negotiated by her agent without her knowledge, but she maintained that the preparation for the trial had taken the best part of a year’s work.

    “I must sound a bit naive, but I leave all that stuff to my agent. I just tell her the time I spend on things,” she said. “It was a huge, huge job. I am not a lawyer and I did sweat over it. There was all the reading of documents and researching, and to distil all that into something that is completely readable is a formidable task.” Gus John, the expert witness recruited on behalf of the Websters, produced a 374-page report and charged about £70,000 for his time. John, author of Taking a Stand and an adviser on combating racism in schools, was similarly untrained as an expert witness. He could not be contacted for comment. John and Stubbs were criticised by the trial judge, Mr Justice Nicol. His judgment said he was “not greatly assisted” by either of them; neither had any experience of giving evidence in High Court proceedings and did not understand they were meant to help with information outside the court’s general knowledge, not merely act as extra advocates for the party calling them. New proposals for reforms to civil court procedures, drawn up by Lord Justice Jackson, call for better controls of costs and the use of experts. According to Jackson, they should be trained in giving evidence and their fees should be agreed by both sides in legal disputes ahead of court proceedings.

    Webster’s mother, Elizabeth, from Wroughton, said she had thought long and hard about whether to pursue a negligence claim against the school, but was swayed by the evidence that her brain-damaged son would have reduced earning power as an adult, as well as her desire to see the school staff called to account for their failure to prevent the brutal attack. “The school never wanted a proper investigation of the background to what happened and this was the only way of getting it,” she said.

    “If I knew then what I know now, I would never have done it. We have had to revisit the horror of it every day during the hearing and now we are paying an extremely heavy price for trying to take on the system.” Gordon Brown has agreed to meet Elizabeth Webster next month to discuss her concerns about schools’ responsibilities for the protection of pupils. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said Jackson’s report was a “useful contribution to the debate”, which the government would consider.

    David Fullard ,Michael Smith, Michael Severs

    A father who defended his family from drug-crazed thugs by wounding one with a Samurai sword has been cleared by a jury. David Fullard, 47, was prosecuted for attacking the two strangers who forced their way into his home and threatened to rape his partner and kill his two teenage children. He insisted he was a desperate man acting legally in self-defence and struck out once with the ornamental sword, because it was the only weapon to hand.

    The blow almost sliced off the ear of Michael Severs, one of the thugs. The prosecution refused to accept that his actions amounted to lawful self-defence and argued it was 'over the top' to attack a man armed with a knuckleduster by using a 'battlefield weapon'. The two thugs were both high on a cocktail of drink and drugs at the time, the court heard.

    But after a five-day trial at Hull Crown Court, Mr Fullard, a builder, broke down in tears as he was found not guilty of unlawful wounding. It ended a nine-month ordeal for a man described by neighbours as 'honest and caring'. He had faced the threat of a long prison term. The case represents another landmark in the debate over how far a householder should be allowed to go in defending his home from an intruder.

    Yesterday jobless Severs, 22, and Michael Smith, 19, escaped with a suspended prison sentence and 100 hours of community work after admitting affray at the court. Judge Michael Mettyear then lifted a reporting restriction on the case. Outside court Mr Fullard criticised the judge for allowing the men to get away with a 'slap on the wrists'.

    He added: 'You cannot stand around and do nothing when someone-comes to your house and starts threatening your family.' Mr Fullard has been supported throughout by partner Susan Neal, 53, and his sons Danny, 14, and Tom, 17, who were in the house during the incident in March last year. He added: 'I only struck one blow with the sword. If there had been a walking stick or umbrella by the door I would have hit him with that.'

    'You cannot stand around and do nothing when someone comes to your house and starts threatening your family' The court heard Severs and Smith, who both have previous convictions for violence, vaguely knew Mr Fullard's elder son and knocked on the door of the family home in Brough, East Yorkshire, claiming he owed them £5 from earlier in the day. It was a ruse to get cash but Smith barged into the living room while Mr Fullard was upstairs and threatened Miss Neal. She told the jury he picked up the ornamental sword and said: 'Do you want some of this?' She said: 'They threatened to rape me, burn the house down, kill the kids and kill Dave.'

    Smith then ran out and Mr Fullard was confronted by Severs in the garden. The thug was armed with a spade and a knuckle-duster. Mr Fullard told the jury he picked up the sword and 'hit him once' and intended for the 'flat of the sword' rather than the blade to connect. He then called police. Mr Fullard was arrested and only later did police arrest Smith and Severs, who had his ear re-attached in hospital.

    munir hussain A millionaire businessman jailed for attacking a career criminal who kidnapped his family and held them at knife-point was freed by the Court of Appeal today. Munir Hussain's 30-month sentence was reduced to a 'merciful' term of two years suspended by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges at the Court of Appeal in London. Lord Judge said the ‘plain, simple reality’ was that Munir was a peaceful man who was acting as a response to the ‘dreadful and terrifying ordeal’ while fearing for the lives of his wife and daughter.

    Munir's brother Tokeer Hussain, 35, had his 39-month jail term reduced to two years. The brothers, described as family men at the heart of the local community, were sentenced after being found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Neither man was present in court for the ruling.

    The decision to free Munir was made by Lord Judge, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Sweeney. Lord Judge said the case was one of 'true exceptionality'. A sentence of two years was in itself 'merciful', but he added: 'We have come to the conclusion that we have ample justification for ordering that it should be suspended.' Lord Judge added: 'The plain, simple reality is that Munir Hussain was acting under the continuing influence of extreme provocation.

    'Involvement in this serious violence can only be understood as a response to the dreadful and terrifying ordeal and the emotional anguish which he had undergone.' He was a peaceful man who acted 'totally out of character, in hot blood... and without detached reasoning', Lord Judge said. He feared for their lives and the honour of his wife and daughter.'

    Referring to the attack on Salem, Lord Judge said: 'In the overwhelming majority of cases where public violence by a gang produces injury as serious as this, very long prison sentences are required.' Cases of 'mob violence' caused great public concern, he said, but this was 'not an ordinary or normal case or one that falls within the overwhelming majority of cases, not least because of the character of the two appellants'. Munir was a hard-working family man, who makes a 'positive contribution to the general community'.

    The judge said: 'It is rare to see men of the quality of the two appellants in court for offences of serious violence.' Reducing Tokeer's sentence, but not suspending it, Lord Judge said: 'He himself was not the victim of any crime. 'He will not have to live with the consequences of the crime.'

    Millionaire Munir was jailed in December last year for attacking a burglar who held his family hostage at knifepoint while masked robbers threatened to kill them. His case provoked a public outcry when he and Tokeer - who live near each other in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire - were jailed for injuring career criminal Walid Salem, while the convicted burglar walked free. Munir and his wife and children returned from their local mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.

    He feared for their lives as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room. Munir, a race relations campaigner and chairman of the Asian Business Council, made his escape after throwing a coffee table and then enlisted the help of Tokeer in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, bringing one of them to the ground. What followed was described at Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far, leaving intruder Walid Salem, 57, with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

    Prosecutors said the brothers had used unnecessary force and violence in the attack. Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident on September 3, 2008, but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. He was given a two-year supervision order. However, in December, The Mail revealed how Salem had a list of 50 convictions dating back to 1980.

    Munir and Tokeer's barristers had argued that the sentences should be reduced in the 'exceptional circumstances' of the case. Munir's lawyer had told the Court of Appeal that he should be freed at once. 'It is a waste of a good man for him to be in prison for a further day,' Michael Wolkind QC said.

    'I ask the court to reflect overwhelming public opinion in this case, not that Salem deserved what he got but that Munir does not deserve the sentence he was given. 'The court cannot deter a home owner from responding in agony and despair.' Mr Wolkind said Munir had believed the men would kill his family, adding: 'The provocation was truly exceptional.'

    He said the terrifying ordeal had left his client suffering from post-traumatic stress, and his wife suffered a mini-stroke during the trial. The family has been warned by police that they could be targeted again.

    He previously told the court: 'Every single day Munir Hussain relives what happened in his home, the one place where a decent good family man should feel safe in the world. 'Every single day he is astounded how a peace-loving non-aggressive man ever found himself in further physical confrontation outside his home.'

    Gibson Grenfell QC, for Tokeer, said the brothers were not vigilantes, adding: 'Within these circumstances one can use lawful force in order to apprehend an attacker.' The case sparked public debate about a homeowner's right to protect his family.

  • Defending your house: so what is 'reasonable force'?
    munir hussain Two businessmen will learn today how long they must serve in prison after an appeal that has reignited controversy over “have-a-go heroes”.

    Yesterday the Court of Appeal rejected an application for leave to appeal against conviction by Munir Hussain, 53, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, and also by his brother Tokeer Hussain, 35. But the judges went on to hear argument that the sentences should be cut and will give their decision today.

    The Lord Chief Justice will rule on whether to cut jail terms of 30 and 39 months imposed on Munir and Tokeer Hussain for chasing an intruder down the street and attacking him with a cricket bat. The case has been fast-tracked to come swiftly before the Court of Appeal headed by Lord Judge, the most senior judge in England and Wales, because of widespread concern. Yesterday Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, published draft manifesto proposals pledging to “change the rules so that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal is not arrested”.

    The Conservatives’ draft proposals also promised to “give householders greater protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders”. Last month, after the jailing of Munir Hussain, Mr Grayling said he wanted to see whether people should be prosecuted only where their actions were “grossly disproportionate”. “We have to be seen to provide greater protection to people who are getting a pretty raw end of the deal when somebody’s coming into their home, trying to threaten them.”

    Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, had no comment on a continuing case. A source close to Mr Straw said Labour changed the law in 2009 to provide protection for householders who do not use disproportionate force. Many members of the public are outraged that the brothers have been jailed. But lawyers say the sentences were appropriate and even lenient. Walid Salem, the intruder, was one of four men who broke into the home of Munir Hussain, tying up and terrorising his family at knifepoint. Salem was left with permanent brain damage after the attack. The Hussain family have continuing nightmares, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.

    Michael Wolkind, QC, for Munir Hussain, asked the Lord Chief Justice and other judges to show him “mercy” and free him immediately. Yesterday Lord Judge, sitting with Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Sweeney, rejected an application for leave to appeal against conviction. The judges’ decision will be keenly watched as a signal as to how such cases should be treated by the courts. Munir Hussain, who is chairman of the Asian Business Council and who was praised at his trial by the judge for defending his wife and three children, returned from the local mosque in September 2008 to find intruders in his home. He feared for his family’s lives as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.

    The businessman escaped after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer, whom he employs as a technical director at his company Soundsorba, in chasing the offenders, bringing one of them to the ground. What followed was described at Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far, leaving Salem with brain injury after he was hit so hard with a cricket bat that it broke into three pieces. Salem was the only intruder caught. He was charged with false imprisonment but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead. He was given a two-year supervision order. The brothers were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The trial judge, Judge John Reddihough, said Munir Hussain’s family had been subject to a “serious and wicked offence”, but that he had carried out a “dreadful, violent attack” on Salem as he lay defenceless.

    The judge told them: “It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished. "If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.” During yesterday’s hearing the brothers’ barristers argued that the sentences should be reduced in the “exceptional circumstances” of the case.

  • Millionaire businessman walks free from court after jail sentence for attacking knife-wielding burglar is overturned
    free speech Despite what apparently seems a good article by Melanie Phillips on the UK's lack of free speech. She takes the opportunity to attack muslims while failing to address her Zionist friends and Israeli's who attack any dissent as anti-semetic and as Melanie happens to be jewish it is no surprise she slants the article heavily in favour of the Zionists who have almost total control of the UK's media. She also supports Rachel Ehrenfeld a jewish writer and her book on Middle East affairs.


    Death of free speech: Is Britain becoming the censorship capital of the world?

    Simon Singh, a science writer, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for describing some of its treatments as 'bogus'. Britain has a historic and international reputation as the home of free speech. Yet in recent times it has been developing an altogether contrary reputation as the country where free speech is being steadily suppressed, courtesy of the English legal system and in particular the law of libel. The latest victim of this phenomenon is a Danish radiologist, Dr Henrik Thomsen. At a scientific congress in Oxford, he claimed that some kidney patients at his hospital had contracted a potentially deadly condition after taking the drug Omniscan. As a result, he found himself being sued for libel by the makers of the drug, a subsidiary of General Electric called GE Healthcare.

    The company has denied that it suppressed information about the drug and said it is safe for 99 per cent of patients. This is merely the latest in a string of alarming cases in which the English libel law has been used to gag debate that is overwhelmingly in the public interest. Several of these cases involve scientific or medical issues. Simon Singh, a science writer, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for describing some of its treatments as 'bogus'. And Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist, is being sued by a U.S. company, NMT Medical, after he questioned the effectiveness of a new heart implant device.


    Far be it for me to suggest that any of these allegations is true. But after raising such matters, serious scientists are being hounded to retract their claims. Yet science depends upon scientists making such critical observations. Trying to gag them surely amounts to an abuse of the libel law and threatens the very integrity of science itself. The idea that libel can be used like this to stifle discussion of the possible dangers of medical treatments will strike many as utterly intolerable. The reason it is happening is that, unlike equivalent laws in other countries against defamation, English libel law is the most draconian in the world. The law of libel has long been the bane of journalists' lives. But now it has become something altogether more sinister and frightening It places the burden of proving that a statement is true on the person who has made it. This means in practice that from the start the cards are stacked against the defendant and in favour of those who are bringing the libel suit.

    This is justified on the grounds that anyone who makes a possibly libellous statement is thought to be best placed to prove the truth of the information they claim to have. But although they may have good reason to believe that something is true, it is often difficult to prove it - not least because to do so may involve gaining access to further information which only the person bringing the libel suit actually possesses. So even if someone has what by any normal standards would be regarded as a justified case for making such a claim, this is not enough to prevent them from losing a libel case. In other countries, by contrast, a malicious intent behind such claims has to be proved in order to win such a case. But in Britain, people are being sued successfully for making reasonable statements. The law of libel has long been the bane of journalists' lives. But now it has become something altogether more sinister and frightening. Rather than a form of legal redress for unjustly sullying someone's reputation, it is increasingly being used by wealthy individuals or organisations as a weapon to stifle politically or commercially unwelcome views.

    Because of the difficulty of proving what may be unprovable, those who express such views are intimidated by the prospect of losing such a case - and then having to pay astronomical legal costs to multinationals or wealthy individuals who can afford to keep racking up the final bill. So scientists, academics, authors, journalists and others are effectively censoring themselves for fear of becoming trapped in a ruinous libel suit - or are being forced to back down and apologise for statements they still believe to be true. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil, which was banned after a Saudi successfully sued her in Britain even though the book was not published in the UK More sinister still, the courts are being used by Arabs and radical Muslims to shut down discussion of Islamic terrorism or extremism. In what appears to be a co-ordinated campaign - aided and abetted by certain English law firms - writers who draw attention to suspected terrorism networks or extremist statements find themselves promptly served with a writ for libel.

    The fact that the grounds for such lawsuits are often preposterous is all but irrelevant given the intimidatory effect of the apparently bottomless pockets behind them. Such 'libel tourism' is proving a chilling weapon in the armoury of those who are waging Islamic holy war. It is also turning Britain into an international pariah as the country whose courts are now the most hospitable in the world to attempts to stifle discussion of Islamic extremism. In one infamous case, U.S. author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued for libel in Britain over her book Funding Evil about the Islamic terrorist money trail. Her book was not even published in the UK. But 23 copies sold over the internet which were shipped to Britain opened her up to a libel suit, in which she was ordered to pay £130,000 in costs and damages. This case has led a number of U.S. states to pass a special law to prevent English libel judgments from being applied to books published in the U.S.

    Britain has now become the global centre for this kind of legal censorship over a growing range of issues. The rich and powerful flock from all over the world to use its courts to stifle scrutiny of their affairs. And, by definition, the public are unaware of such suppression since, because of the risk of libel, no one can tell them what it is they are not being allowed to know. The result is that there are increasing occasions where rogues, malefactors and incompetents are getting away with extremism, negligence or other bad deeds without any public scrutiny at all.


    Now a campaign backed by many eminent people has got under way to reform the libel law. MPs who have been slow to respond to this growing threat suddenly woke up recently when it reached Parliament itself. The attempt by the law firm Carter-Ruck to prevent the Guardian newspaper from reporting a Labour MP's question about the alleged dumping of toxic waste by the oil trading company Trafigura, on the grounds that this would break an injunction against reporting such allegations, was seen as a direct challenge to the supremacy of the legislature. The resulting outcry forced Carter-Ruck to back down, but the threat to Parliament has apparently not disappeared. Anything MPs say in the chamber of the Commons has immunity from libel. But according to Index On Censorship, the Speaker's Office has now advised the House of Commons that, contrary to previous reassurances, MPs do not have the same legal protection for statements they make elsewhere in Parliament, such as in committees or other public meetings. And meanwhile, in the past few days the BBC has apologised to Trafigura and paid £25,000 in libel damages for claims made on BBC2's Newsnight about waste dumping - in a case which some experts had estimated would rack up costs of around £3million if the BBC had fought it.

    Of course, those whose reputations really are traduced must be able to obtain justice. But such corporate or individual intimidation courtesy of the English libel law must be stopped if Britain is not to exchange its reputation as the crucible of free speech for that of the laughing stock of the world.

    walid salem

    Thug Walid Salem boasts he is untouchable as the householder he tormented is jailed.

    A career criminal who violated a man's home with two other knife-wielding thugs boasted that the law could not touch him. Walid Salem, 57, was set free by a judge while Munir Hussain, the householder, was jailed for two-and-a-half years. In court Munir's wife Shaheen, 49, who has recently suffered a stroke, described her ordeal. After the raiders burst into their home, she said: 'They were hitting my husband. When I asked them to stop or looked up they started hitting him again. 'They told us to lie face down and not speak, or they would kill us. It was very terrifying. Just thinking about it makes me shiver.' Munir, 53, a self-made millionaire businessman, managed to escape and he and his brother Tokeer chased Salem as he fled. After catching him, 'in the agony of the moment' they beat him with weapons including a cricket bat which broke into three.

    Salem suffered a fractured skull, a broken jaw and brain damage. Munir's brother Qadeer, 45, said yesterday that Salem bragged outside court he would not go to prison for threatening to kill Mr Hussain, his ill wife, and three children. Qadeer, an IT consultant, said: 'Outside he was deliberately talking loudly to his son, saying, "The law cannot jail me".' The words proved to be prophetic, for Salem was given only a two-year supervision order. But then Salem, unlike the man whose home he invaded, has had plenty of experience of the criminal justice system - and he has rarely received much more than a slap on the wrist. As the Daily Mail can reveal in detail for the first time, Salem has a shameful list of more than 50 convictions that stretch back to 1980. Despite crimes including possessing a firearm, 22 fraud offences and 27 of theft, the longest sentence Salem ever received was 42 months, of which he would have had to serve only half.

    Ironically, Salem posed as an upstanding member of the community, even helping to organise the Neighbourhood Watch at his home in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. Sylvia Hodgkinson, who lives in the same block of flats, said: 'He thought Britain was in a dire way. He was angry about youths drinkingand vandalising property. He felt things were not under control, that other countries dealt with it better.' Salem, who was born in Cairo, has a son aged 28 and 20-year-old twins, a son and daughter. He is now thought to be living in a criminal rehabilitation centre. Meanwhile Munir and Tokeer Hussain were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The brothers insist they used no more than reasonable force and claim that Salem's serious injuries were not inflicted by them, but by a group of youths who were driving by and came to their aid. They are seeking to appeal against their convictions and sentence.

    Munir will be represented by Michael Wolkind QC, who acted for Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot dead a burglar at his home.

    Torment of a family still living in fear

    Munir Hussain's life as he knew it ended on September 3 last year. Until then, the successful businessman had been well known and esteemed among High Wycombe's Asian community. He was involved in numerous local projects, but the one of which he was perhaps most proud was his campaign to save his former school from demolition and have it turned into a young people's centre. His wife, Shaheen, 49, the mother of his three children, was an equally popular figure who would always create a sumptuous spread when the pair were hosting an event. If anyone had a problem, it was to the Hussains' house they would go for advice. The police, too, often sought Mr Hussain's advice, most notably during tension which followed the arrests of terror suspects in the area in 2007. He was known as 'The Peacemaker'.

    But everything changed one night last year when Munir and his two sons returned from the mosque and were threatened at knifepoint by a gang of three men wearing balaclavas. They and Munir's wife and daughter were forced to lie on the floor and were told they were going to be killed, and their terrifying ordeal ended only when Munir and his son, Samad, broke free and chased one of the intruders, career criminal Waled Salem, into a neighbour's garden. Salem was then subjected to a ferocious attack which left him with a permanent brain injury and a fractured skull.

    Witnesses said about four Asian men were seen battering Salem with implements including a hockey stick and cricket bat. Munir and his 35-year-old brother, Tokeer, were convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and this week Munir was sentenced to 30 months in jail while his brother was sentenced to 39 months. The story has provoked a storm of debate over the rights of homeowners to defend themselves when their family are threatened in their own homes.

    The fact that Munir Hussain is now in prison while the man who broke into his home is free - having been given only a two-year supervision order - is seen as a terrible injustice by many people. So what has the impact of this shocking series of events been on Munir and his family? fear Munir may be suicidal. His barrister, Michael Wolkind QC, says: 'We are afraid he will harm himself and it won't just be a gesture.' Munir, 53, has told his solicitor Razi Shah that the conviction has left him stunned. He reportedly told him: 'I just can't understand a justice system that would jail me for trying to save the lives of my children. 'I don't know what I was supposed to do. I thought the jury would have families and have some idea what the terror of their children being threatened is like. Every Briton desperate to protect their family from criminals could end up like me.'

    Speaking publicly for the first time, Qadeer Hussain, the brother of Munir and Tokeer, reveals the devastation the family has suffered as a result of the incident. Munir's wife and their sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year- old daughter Arooj, are living in terror after police told Munir they had received information that their lives were under threat. Qadeer, a 45-year-old computer network designer, said that after the attack, Munir's personality dramatically changed. 'As the eldest sibling of the family, he was probably the most calm, he would think about things before he did anything,' he said. 'He was not the type of person who would worry about about anything. But since this incident, he has been distraught. He put in alarms at his home and security cameras. 'He pretty much became a prisoner in his own house. He believes the two other men who were with Salem are still at large, and he doesn't know if they are going to come back.' According to Qadeer, Munir's wife - whom he married in 1983 - has also retreated into herself and is deeply traumatised. She had a stroke a few years ago and suffered a second during her husband's trial. 'When I visit, she doesn't say a word,' said Qadeer. 'She used to visit all the family's houses in the road pretty much every day. She doesn't go out of the house any more.

    'She is extremely fearful for her children and herself, and her husband not being there makes it even more difficult.' One of the hardest things for the family, however, has been seeing the impact on the brothers' 80-year- old father, Zaman Ali. Already in frail health following a stroke, he has suffered two heart attacks since the break-in. He brought his family to Britain in 1964 from Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, where he worked as a farmhand, in search of a better life, and took work as a labourer. Qadeer says his father instilled in his sons a strong sense of community. 'We come from a very humble background. But my father has vision. He set up a school in Pakistan for girls to take them beyond primary education. My father brought my brother Munir here to educate him, to live in a civilised society. 'My father once told Munir off for having a parking ticket. That was the mindset of our parents.' In High Wycombe, Munir went to Green Street Community School, and later when the council wanted to close it, he was instrumental in turning it into a community centre.

    Munir trained as an engineer but later founded a soundproofing company, Soundsorba, which now has an annual turnover of £2.5million. His brother Tokeer works for it. Munir's son Awais said the ambush was 'every family's worst nightmare'. 'These men were wearing balaclavas and holding 12in knives to our necks,' he said. 'They punched me and my father repeatedly in the head and face and pushed us all to the floor. 'My father tried to reason with them, saying, "Take everything we have - just don't hurt us". But the men were sneering and shouting, "We're gonna f*****g kill you". 'My sister and mother were crying hysterically. We all thought we were going to die.' Qadeer assumes the gang wanted to rob them. 'You force the family to say where money is hidden, or whatever.

    'After his son Samad escaped, Munir had no idea where he was. He was thinking his son could have been kidnapped, could have been killed.' After the incident, Munir was taken to a police station to make a victim statement, but arrested that night. 'He was put in a police cell and detained; he didn't get the opportunity to speak to anybody,' said Qadeer. 'In the the six or seven days he was locked up, he worried all the time about what was happening to the rest of his family. 'Knowing that two men who had broken into the house were still at large was absolute torture for him.' Before the trial, Munir was granted bail. 'I'd visit him at home and most of the time he'd be staring into space. He wasn't interested in doing anything else.' says Munir's son Samad has also been deeply affected. 'He was a cheerful lad but this has scarred him for life. When I try to cheer him up there's no response. Munir's daughter Arooj also doesn't go out of the house any more.'

    Qadeer says his father is trying to be philosophical about what has happened. 'His attitude is that we just have to be strong and carry on.' Munir and his brother are locked up in HMP Bullingdon in Bicester. The family solicitor visited them on Thursday. 'Munir was being brave and trying to be practical about adjusting to his new environment,' said Qadeer. 'He was, naturally, worried about his family. 'We don't live a normal life any more. We feel Munir and Tokeer have been harshly dealt with.'

    Meanwhile Egyptian-born Waled Salem, 57, is a free man. He received a two-year supervision order for aggravated burglary and false imprisonment after being deemed not fit to plead. How does Qadeer feel about Salem? 'For any civilised person to go through what my brothers have and realise the person who has done it to them had 52 previous convictions including for firearms - which is what emerged at the trial - I find it difficult to understand. 'He's been a career criminal since 1981 and he's walking the streets. 'He's been caught more than 50 times, how many times has he got away with it, and not been caught? How many other families have been terrorised?'

  • Hard cases make bad sentences(especially when its masonic judges)
    secret court Like ALL British courts, especially family courts, MASONIC judges make the decisions and STEAL victims assets on behalf of a totally corrupt CROWN.

    The secretive Court of Protection - which controls the finances of some of Britain's most vulnerable people - has been ordered to open its proceedings to media scrutiny. The court, already facing an internal review after nearly 4,000 complaints in just two years, has been told that it can no longer hold all its hearings in private. The move comes after a Mail on Sunday investigation highlighted widespread concerns about the way the court is run. A test case last week ruled that the court should allow the media to attend one of its private hearings, which govern the money and care of people suffering from dementia and others lacking mental capacity. This is set to open the way for reporting of many more of the court's previously secret cases.

    The public will still be barred from the court in North London but the media will be allowed to attend the hearing as they showed they can provide 'good reason' to do so. The landmark decision by High Court judge Mr Justice Hedley comes following a legal case to decide the control of the affairs of an 'internationally famous' disabled man.

    The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was described in court as a young adult 'who is severely disabled, resulting in severe learning difficulties which render him incapable of making decisions as to any significant issue in his life'. The Court of Protection is involved because, the judge said, 'he is and is likely to remain dependent on others for his care and he is currently cared for in accommodation provided by a national charity. 'However, he also possesses remarkable gifts and the practice of those have brought him to public, indeed international, attention.'

    Cases in the Court of Protection, set up two years ago, had, until now, been heard in private and reporting of most of its rulings are banned. But last week Mr Justice Hedley ordered that the media could report details of the case after the hearing, including the identity and background of the disabled but gifted individual, but some information about his finances should remain secret. Alastair Pitblado, the Official Solicitor who acts for people who cannot make their own decisions, said that he would go to the Court of Appeal in his client's best interests.

    He added: 'The rules [for the Court of Protection] were recently made by Parliament and the default position is privacy.' Justice Secretary Jack Straw has ordered a judge to review the workings of the court after The Mail on Sunday revealed the problems faced by the families of those put under its protection. A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, which oversees the court, said: 'We have always said that it is open to the Press to make an application to attend the Court of Protection on a case-by-case basis, and this is what has happened.'

    courop Secret court seizes £3.2bn from elderly... and even forces furious families to pay to access own bank account

    3,000 complaints in first 18 months of new system
    Families made to pay to access own bank account
    Homes of elderly raided in search for documents

    The Court of Protection

    A secret court is seizing the assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and turning control of their lives over to the State - against the wishes of their relatives. The draconian measures are being imposed by the little-known Court of Protection, set up two years ago to act in the interests of people suffering from Alzheimer's or other mental incapacity. The court hears about 23,000 cases a year - always in private - involving people deemed unable to take their own decisions. Using far-reaching powers, the court has so far taken control of more than £3.2billion of assets.

    The cases involve civil servants from the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which last year took £23million in fees directly from the bank accounts of those struck down by mental illness, involved in accidents or suffering from dementia. The officials are legally required to act in cases where people do not have a 'living will', or lasting power of attorney, which hands control of their assets over to family or friends. But the system elicited an extraordinary 3,000 complaints in its first 18 months of operation. Among them were allegations that officials failed to consult relatives, imposed huge fees and even 'raided' elderly people's homes searching for documents.

    Carers trying to cope with a mentally impaired loved one, forced to apply for a court order to access money, said they felt the system put them under suspicion as it assumed at the outset that they were out to defraud their relatives. Opposition politicians said the system, set up by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, needed to be overhauled to take account of the fact that most people were 'honourable and decent' and had their loved ones' best interests at heart. The Government now says everyone should establish a lasting power of attorney to state who should look after their affairs should they become incapacitated - although most people will be utterly unaware of this advice.

    Only 60,000 people in Britain have registered these 'living wills' with the authorities, and the problems begin when someone is suddenly, unexpectedly mentally impaired. Without this document, relatives must apply to the courts and the anonymous OPG, part of the Ministry of Justice based in an office block in Birmingham, is required to look into the background of carers to decide if they are fit to run the ill or elderly person's affairs. The organisation has 300 staff, costs £26.5million a year to run and is headed by £80,000-a-year career civil servant Martin John, a former head of asylum and immigration policy in Whitehall. It prepares reports for the Court of Protection, based in a tower block in Archway, North London.

    In many cases relatives have to complete a 50-page form giving huge amounts of personal information about themselves, their family, their own finances and their relationship with the person they wish to help care for. The majority of applications are decided on the basis of paper evidence without holding a hearing. But applications relating to personal welfare, or large gifts or settlements, may be contentious and require the court to hold a hearing to decide the case. These hearings, before a senior judge, examine evidence and witnesses, who can be compelled to appear. The court has the same powers as the High Court, but is closed to all but the parties involved in the case and their lawyers. The Press and public are banned.

    The presiding judge then decides whether a family member can become a 'deputy' acting for their mentally impaired loved one. If no one is available, or if the judge decides a family member is not suitable, the court can appoint a local authority or in some cases a solicitor to carry out the task. The OPG then charges an annual fee of up to £800 to supervise the activities of the deputy, whether they are a family member or a professional appointee. Victims of the system: Sunita Obhrai with her mother Pushpa, whose affairs she has been banned from looking after

    The court takes over control of people's finances, which means deputies - whether a relative or not - must get authorisation to pay expenses such as rent and household bills on their behalf. Only if a relative is given power of attorney before a person is mentally incapacitated will they be able to avoid applying to the court and the OPG for the right to control their assets later. Any cash controlled by the court is held in the name of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court and administered by the Court Funds Office. In some cases money is voluntarily lodged with the court.

    The current Court of Protection replaced a previous body with the same name which had more restricted powers and was overseen by the High Court. The new body can rule on property and financial affairs and decisions relating to health and personal welfare, without referring it to a higher court. But relatives caught up in the system say they are suddenly confronted by a legal and bureaucratic minefield. Children's author Heather Bateman was forced to get permission from the court to use family funds after an accident left her journalist husband Michael in a coma.

    In a moving account of her family's ordeal in Saga magazine, she wrote: 'Michael and I were two independent working people. We had been married for 28 years. We had written our wills, both our names were on the deeds of the house we shared in London and the Norfolk cottage we had renovated over the years. 'We had separate bank accounts and most of the bills were paid from Michael's account. Now, to continue living in the way we always had done, I needed to access the money in his account. 'The Court of Protection brought me almost as much anger, grief and frustration into my life as the accident itself. [It is] an alien, intrusive, time-consuming and costly institution, which was completely out of tune with what we were going through. It ruled my waking moments and my many sleepless nights.'

    Mrs Bateman even had to apply to the court for permission to pay the couple's daughter's university fees. She added: 'I could write as many cheques as necessary up to £500. But if I needed to access more I had to get permission from the court.' Sunita Obhrai's mother Pushpa has lived in council-run sheltered housing for 15 years. About two years ago, the 76-year-old widow started to become forgetful and once left the oven on, and the fire brigade had to be called.

    Miss Obhrai claims that without her knowledge the local authority, Buckinghamshire County Council, were appointed to run her mother's affairs. Critic: Heather Bateman, with husband Michael, has eloquently attacked the 'intrusive' court She said: 'They took over running my mother's bank account and charged her over £1,000 a year in fees, and all they were doing was ensuring her rent and utility bills were paid by direct debit.

    'She is given just £20 a week pocket money. Council officials even came and searched her flat while she was asleep in her bedroom. They told me they had to retrieve documents so they could do their job. But someone should have been with my mother. It is unbelievable that they can behave in this way.' Early this year Miss Obhrai applied to the court to take over from the local authority and oversee her mother's finances herself. But the court rejected her appeal. She said: 'Many of our other relatives and friends wrote to the court backing me, but the court ignored them. I have never done anything to harm my mother, nor would I, but the council claims I am not a fit person to look after my mother's affairs and there is little I can do to defend myself.'

    The council said it could not discuss the case in detail, but did not deny that officials had let themselves into the elderly woman's home uninvited and unaccompanied by a family member. A spokeswoman said: 'The court has already deemed our action appropriate.' An internet support group, Court of Protection Problems, reveals other struggles with the system. One recent posting by 'gillm1', whose mother suffers dementia, said: 'They are causing me so much stress and worry and I feel I am being treated like a criminal. Their letters are bullying and threatening and they completely ignore everything I say.

    'I have grown to hate them! They took years to process my application and I object strongly to the extortionate fees they are demanding.' Another writes: 'They have upped my supervision level without taking any notice of my appeal - therefore costing my mum yet another £800 per year. It's nothing short of robbery. 'All I want is to be left alone to pay my mum's bills and to safeguard as much of her money as I can, but these people are constantly demanding high fees for their "services" which, as far as I can see, consist of harassing people and little else!'

    'Everybody is often assumed to be predatory,' said 'robb5'. They 'are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Repeatedly I've felt like I'm forever on trial, we've had to undergo financial and psychological strip-searches without the first bit of evidence to suspect anything.' Shadow Justice Minister Henry Bellingham said: 'It appears the system is set up with the assumption that people's close relatives do not have their loved one's best interests at heart. 'We are looking at this to see if it would be more efficient and a good deal fairer for the system to assume that most people are honourable and decent and then to deal with those few people who abuse their loved ones' trust.'

    A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said the courts and officials involved faced a delicate balancing act. She said: 'Decisions are entirely a matter for the courts, based on the individual circumstances. It is a careful balancing act between protecting vulnerable people who have lost mental capacity and recognising their views and the perspectives of those close to them. 'The next of kin is not necessarily the most appropriate person to act in such circumstances. The OPG recommends that every adult considers making a lasting power of attorney. This enables people to choose someone they know and trust to make decisions about their property and affairs or their personal welfare, should they become unable to make decisions for themselves.'

    Neil Hunt, of the Alzheimer's Society, said: 'It is important that people make plans for their future. But the disturbing truth is that making plans for the future is often the last thing on our minds. 'Everyone should make a lasting power of attorney to ensure their wishes and rights are protected.' The first Court of Protection was set up by Labour's 2005 Mental Incapacity Act, which for the first time formalised the arrangements for dealing with the assets and care of people suffering from dementia and other similar illnesses.

    Before this it was left to families and social services to make arrangements - but it was argued this ad hoc system was open to abuse by both family members and by officials.

    trial by jury Press Release by Saunders Law Partnership LLP concerning the case of John Twomey (July 2009)

    The Court of Appeal has withdrawn the right of jury trial from our client John Twomey, and ordered that he and his three co defendants are to be tried on a charge of robbery and related charges by Judge alone. The ruling has been made on the basis of secret material, which we have never seen, presented by witnesses whose identity - other than their rank in the Metropolitan Police- has not been disclosed to us, which we have been told relates to jury tampering.

    That is all we have been told. We have never been able to put forward any sort of defence to the allegation of jury tampering because we do not know what the evidence for this is. The ruling overturns the decision of David Calvert-Smith, presiding judge of the South-Eastern circuit and former DPP, that any risk of tampering with a future jury could be met by having a protected jury. Mr Twomey's trial was halted in December of last year when the prosecution made these allegations. He is charged with others with a serious robbery at Heathrow in February 2004, and related offences. Three attempts have been now made to try Mr Twomey on these charges since his arrest in 2004. On the first he was taken seriously ill and was unable to continue, although the trial continued for his six co-defendants. In a second trial with Mr Twomey and two different co-defendants the jury were unable to reach verdicts. No jury has convicted any defendant on any charge in these trials.

    Mr Twomey gave evidence in one of the 'Operation Countryman' trials in 1980 against Metropolitan Police officers who were charged with having fitted him up. He feels that some police officers have borne a grudge against him for many years, and that it is no coincidence that he is now the first defendant to face trial by judge alone, based on undisclosed evidence presented by Metropolitan Police officers to judges behind closed doors.

    The law now permits defendants in England and Wales to be tried by judge alone if it is decided there is evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place at trial. Baroness Scotland the Attorney General said in the House of Lords in debating this clause: 'There is no question of the police and/or prosecution simply whispering in the judge's ear, in order to secure a juryless trial. Firm and substantial evidence of risk will be needed'. In this case the evidence has all been presented to the various judges involved, behind closed doors, in secret, in part by witnesses whose identity we do not know, with no prospect of the defence examining it or being able to rebut it. It is difficult to see the practical difference for the defence between that procedure and a whisper in the judge's ear.

    The Court of Appeal has refused to certify that any question of public importance arises here, so that we cannot now take this case to the House of Lords. We wanted the House of Lords to consider whether trial by judge alone could be ordered when the defendant has no opportunity effectively to make representations to the Court about the making of the Order because facts and matters concerning the making of the Order are not disclosed to the defendant. Last week, on 10 June, the House of Lords gave its judgment in the 'terrorist' control order case. In that case Lord Phillips said in the judgment at paragraph 63 "There are, however, strong policy considerations that support a rule that a trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him." At paragraph 65 Lord Phillips stated "The Grand Chamber (of the European Court) has now made clear that non disclosure cannot go so far as to deny a party knowledge of the essence of the case against him, at least where he is at risk of consequences as severe as those normally imposed under a control order."

    In our view the withdrawing of right to jury trial must be a 'severe consequence.' Mr Twomey should not have to face trial without a jury while remaining wholly in the dark about the why he has been deprived of this right.

    We are considering what steps we may now be able to take about this situation.

    justice All societies govern by their Justice System. The power to punish carries with it ALL power. It remains a universal eternal criterion of justice that the validity and justice of laws and all acts of their enforcement require to be judged not by those who make and enforce the laws (government), but by those who voluntarily agree to abide by the laws (all the adult citizens). All those who do not uphold this tenet are then promoting unlawful rule by a tyrannical élite. Unwittingly, or for self-advantage, they serve despots, abet tyranny, and are the criminal enemies of freedom and equal justice.

    Because the fairness and justice of the laws and all acts of law enforcement require to be judged by those who agree to abide by the laws (not by those who make and enforce the laws), according to natural law, common law, constitutional law, and the paramount requirement for Equal Justice, the Common Law Trial by Jury of ordinary adult citizens in which the jurors judge the justice of the law is the only justice system which is legal and just everywhere, for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal.

    That is why Common Law Trial by Jury is installed by ALL legitimate constitutions as the sole justice system for all crimes (unimpeachable), civil, criminal and fiscal.

    The Juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury defines democracy, sine qua non. Within a Hellenic or modern democracy, the Jury Comprises the Supreme Legislature.


    "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognise the undisputed power of the jury to acquit even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence."

    "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
    United States v. Moylan; U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F. 2d 1002.

    Neither in the United States, Britain, Eire, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, nor in all of Europe and elsewhere, have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors to govern government; nor to remove the universal Right of the accused to the Trial by Jury of peers for any charge or offence whatever, however serious or trivial.

    Today, U.S. v Moylan is not exemplified by the modus operandi of courts. Democracy has been overturned by politicians and judiciary.

    Trial by Jury Was Constitutionally Emplaced for the Purposes of:

    A.) not only ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where necessary for apportioning retribution, but also

    B.) of transcendent importance, as a barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, tyranny; and from the prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges). Trial by Jury enables the people to judge authoritatively what their liberties and laws are (as explained herein), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy.


    Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous other countries, it is DEFINITIVE of Trial by Jury that, after swearing to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, in finding their Verdict,

    The Jurors Judge:

    ~on the justice of the law, and annul, by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict, any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of right and wrong);

    ~in addition to the facts, and

    ~on the admissibility of evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or judge and/or prosecutor).

    Jurors Must Judge:

    ~that the accused acted with malice aforethought, i.e., mens rea, a premeditated malicious motive to find guilt (‘guilt’ is a characteristic inherent or absent in motives and actions: it cannot be ascribed by legislation*);

    ~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence; and where guilt is unanimously found,

    ~on mitigating circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and

    ~set the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just).

    * There is no moral justice nor political necessity (i.e., deterrent value) for punishing where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)

    For jurors not to do the above, or for someone other than the jurors to make any such decisions, is another process: call it ‘trial-by-someone-else’ if you will, or ‘trial-by-the-judge’ -- but this travesty cannot be defined as Trial BY JURY.


    It is an irrevocable principle of the traditional (pan-) European, Irish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, the British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and the American People’s Common Law governing jurisprudence, and of Magna Carta (Article 53 of John’s Charter and 17 of Henry’s), that Trial shall be by Jury and that at Trial by Jury no judge or other officer appointed by government shall preside in criminal cases or lawsuits in which the government is also an interested party (called pleas of the crown in the U.K.). In such cases, without the observance of this prohibition there can be neither Trial by Jury, nor legal trial of any type.

    The reasons for this are simple and pure: regarding convening officers (‘judges’) at trials, impartiality and integrity cannot be obtained (nor realistically even expected) from people who enforce the laws who are selected by those who also make and maintain the laws. At the common "law of the land," whether in civil or criminal cases, all officers who convene trials are chosen (elected) by the people. At common law, all convenors (justices; judges) are themselves subject to common law and are answerable to the common law tribunals of the people (i.e., Trial by Jury), not protected by élite privilege nor impeachable by government and legislature.
    See Book 4 of Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 413; and Introduction to Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p. 2, note, & p. 4; etc.

    Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial is not ‘trial-by-government’ which could never be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments’ laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer.

    For these reasons given, government and judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever.

    Q. "When is a judge not a judge?"
    A. "When the ‘judge’ is not a member of the jury."

    Until the Latin-derived word ‘juror’ was adopted, jurors were actually called the judges, in recognition of their rôle. "...the judges, for so the jury were called..." See p. 55 of Crabbe’s History of the English Law, etc. In Trial by Jury, the Foreman or woman of the jury is the principal presiding officer.

    In Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, all adult citizens qualify for jury service (save the aged, the sick, convicts and lunatics). Common law requires Jurors to be indiscriminately chosen by lot or chance, so as to represent all views in society and protect minorities (see later sections on Jury Selection and Illegal ‘Jury Packing’ by the government).

    The Criteria for Measuring the Legitimacy of Governments.

    Legem terræ common law is indispensable to the maintenance of civil peace, the well-being of all the population, and to the inalienable right of humans to unmolested tranquillity of existence, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, it is of supreme importance that, for their own benefit, every sane teen and adult comes to understand the common law and, without compromise, support and ceaselessly campaign for the restoration of its supremacy.

    Common Law is the timeless supreme universal legal and moral code which ‘exists’ independently over statute law. Whether governments acknowledge and submit to legem terræ common law are the criteria for measuring their legitimacy.


    ~the jury has the power to call witnesses, advisers and appoint amicus curiæ*;
    * amicus curiæ is Latin for ‘a friend to the court’; an impartial adviser not a party to the case (pronounced cure-ee-ee, the æ as in Cæsar; seize);

    ~the rule of law rôle of convenors of courts (‘judges’) is as a convenor and for arranging security; advisory, inasmuch as this may be requested by the jury, of which advice jurors may take only what is by them adjudged appropriate; and for the arranging of re-trials and appeals if necessitated by circumstances (see Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, pp. 57 & 70; and Vol. 1 of Palgrave’s Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, p. 277; etc.);

    ~those misnamed ‘justices’ or ‘judges’ (i.e., the convenors) are wholly subsidiary to and at the command of the jury and its Foreman or woman;

    ~the ‘judge’ has no judicial rôle or authority: this precludes the possibility of judges inflicting injustices as is so often the case today;

    ~self-evidently, a person without judicial authority cannot legitimately set ‘precedents’, make ‘case law’, ‘rulings’ on law, or ‘interpretations’ of law. Still less can the outpourings of a person bereft of a judicial position interpret or dictate the law in any way binding on a Jury. At the common law, for the irrevocable principles of fairness, impartiality and justice explained above, only the Jurors (not the government ‘judge’) try, i.e., judge, the case according to common law principles and duties;

    ~at common law, excepting criminals and lunatics, the functions and rôle of the ‘judge’, i.e., the convenor, are straightforward and can be undertaken by any elected or sortition (i.e., randomly) chosen adult inexpert in the law;

    ~laws which are plainly just require little debate or explanation. Until a written law is thus evidently and plainly just it merits no place place in the statute book: its prosecution requires Annulment-by-Jury; its expunction from the roll of legislation is mandated by jurors rejection of its enforcement;

    ~advice may be requested by the jurors from the convenor (‘judge’) who need not be qualified in the law to perform the functions of convenor because, according to common law, if explanation of a law is ever required, or its justice or validity and hence its very legality is disputed, both the plaintiff and the accused and their counsel and amicus curiæ may render such explication as the jury deems necessary;

    ~jurors may observe or reject advice about the law as they consider appropriate and decide the law and verdict according to their individual conscience (i.e., sense of fairness, right and wrong);

    ~the Trial by Jury is the only system which is legal for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal. This was duly recognised and inscribed into Magna Carta (viz. Article 39). That is to say, government only has the power to act against a person, his property or liberties by the authority of, and according to the sentence of a jury.

    ~contempt charges laid on persons by juries or judges have to be tried as for any crime, that is, by jury;

    ~the jurors’ duty to do justice, and the Right of Juries to find the Verdict according to the jurors’ convictions and conscience, are amongst the duties which define the Trial as being by Jury (as opposed to it being trial by government or trial-by-judge).

    ~all evidence can be presented, and requires to be considered for its admissibility by the jurors -- especially if it reveals partiality, injustice, an unfounded nature, or venality in the law.

    ~by ascribing judgement (i.e., all judicial functions) to the peers (jurors), the Trial by Jury comprises a Constitution per se, allowing punishments neither to be prescribed by statute, that is, by the legislative power, nor in any other manner by government or judges. Consequently, all statutes or regulations prescribing particular punishments for particular ‘offences’, or giving the government’s judges any authority to set punishments, were, and are, void. Such sentences pertaining thereto are Miscarriages of Justice. All persons suffering persecution thereby are due a proper Trial by Jury (re-trial); and if found to have acted innocently, i.e., behaved without malice aforethought (the criterion by which ‘guilt’ is defined by common law), are due (overdue) Amnesty and Restitution.

    ~common law takes into account the fact that if the amounts of fines were left to be set by the government (judge) it would represent an irresistible pecuniary temptation for government to impose oppressive amercements on people. Similarly, if the judges were allowed to set sentences other than fines, they could be seduced by corrupt motives into threatening or imposing harsh sentences to achieve criminal aims.

    ~in short, common law and accordingly the Constitution forbid government functionaries from interfering in any aspect of the judgement and sentencing of a citizen’s behaviour in any case whatsoever. The pan-European common law inscribed into Magna Carta prescribes that all aspects of the case are to be judged by the jurors. It was and remains the purpose of Trial by Jury to protect the people from all possible oppression by government. The jury and only the jury set the sentence.

    ~common law does not prescribe that the government must punish according to the sentence of the peers, but that government shall not punish "unless according to" that sentence. It does not oblige government to execute the sentence; but it forbids government from going beyond the sentence. Government might lessen the sentence or acquit on grounds of law, or even pardon. However, government cannot legally punish beyond the extent of the jurors’ sentence. In this way, the Constitution forbids government from punishing, except according to the judgement of peers: "nisi per judicium parium suorum."

    ~convenors (‘judges’) cannot pronounce sentences unless they have been first set by the jury following a lawful common law Trial by Jury. Hence, legally, judges cannot procede summarily in any case whatever, even when a plea of guilty is entered. For convenors to do so judicably breaches common law.

    ~Whilst administrative courts (justices, judges) may fulfil the duty of the judicial department to interpret the meanings of the words comprising a statute, to indicate to the legislature what the law may be and reflect upon statutes, legislation, regulations and such evidence as is submitted to them, this is a bureaucratic, advisory rôle. To be lawful the Trial of all crimes must in every case be by legem terræ common law Trial by Jury. Not only are the justices’ interpretations and rulings on the law never binding on a Jury, but in every Trial by Jury, sine qua non, the Jurors are the judges; the Jurors alone judge and decide on the admissibility of evidence and the legality of the statutes.

    ~The common law Jury forms the People’s Supreme Legislature and Judicature.


    Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding stipulations of those nations’ Constitutions. Today, every single one of the above requirements definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or obstructed by the ‘judges’.

    Labyrinthine deceits of modern usurpation inhabit the politicians’ statute book, which bears no resemblance and pays no respect to universal common laws of truth, justice, liberty, and equality before the law. Common law is inserted into the Constitution to protect the people from government abuse of power. Common law legally binds government and controls the government’s modus operandi. As distinct from despotism and barbarism, this common law is the definitive basis of civilisation, democracy and legitimate government, sine qua non.
    The Juror’s Duty Is Simple.

    It should be remembered that the Juror’s duty is uncomplicated: ‘guilt’ of a crime can only be pronounced where the accused’s act was a deliberate, premeditated one of malice aforethought. Similar judgements are the daily fact of life in commonplace human interactions. We make such appraisals frequently... "Is this person behaving in a way that is dishonest or malign?" "Is that person telling the truth?" "Why are they doing that?" "Are these people genuine?" (Again, note that in the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)

    Regardless of the intricacies of evidence (and it is always for the prosecution to present a clear case), in cases of fraud the contrast between genuine innocence and malicious motivation is especially easy for jurors to discern. Only ulterior mens rea, i.e., criminal intent, lies behind politicians and other individuals advocating denial to the accused of Trial by Jury and the handing over of fraud cases to ‘trial-by-government-judge’.

    Laws Require To Be Just.

    The inscribed governmental statute laws require to be just and simple if they are to be met with unanimous approbation from juries. Again, it is always for the plaintiff to make his cause clear.

    If explanation of a law is ever necessary and disputation over its fairness and hence its very legality arises, then this explication requires to be performed equally by plaintiff and defendant and/or defence and prosecution counsel, not exclusively by the convenor (judge).

    Juries decide on the justice, validity and applicability of laws in every act of enforcement. Common law, being exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people, is known almost intuitively to people everywhere. With a modicum of thought, people realise that justice makes its case plain to sane adults in all times and places.

    Common Law Trials by Jury Do Not Drag On.

    With the Jury deciding on the admissibility of the evidence and supervising the process, Trial by Jury brings justice which is fair, swift and sure. Prosecution counsel must marshal the evidence to present an undelayed, forthright, straightforward comprehensible case; not the protracted lucrative charade in which lawyers feign and wallow today.

    Citizens involved in Jury Duty embody authority of the country and its people: they are properly respected and compensated.

    Crime Is Diminished.

    Brutish intrusions by the state and its personnel into innocent citizens’ lives are subject to prosecution and, where appropriate, to just retribution. Vexatious regulations are obliterated; life, liberty, property and rights are held in the hands of the people themselves (not subject to arbitrary government intervention). Crime and litigation in the society run by ultimate rule of the people deciding the law as Jurors, are significantly diminished. The mass of partisan, inequitable and venal legislation (extant today), is duly annulled, unenforceable and generally expunged. Hence, the number of prosecutions is greatly reduced.

    The shameful, unjust charade which takes place in the courtroom today is not and never could be described as Trial by Jury nor as a 'justice system'. With regard to the e-mail header "Shame on Shaming the police," in the absence of the genuine Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System for all disputed causes, civil, criminal and fiscal, the government apparatus is today operating unlawfully and illegally.

    We forget the lessons of history at our peril. The right to the Trial by Jury is the defence and basis upon which all other rights depend. Those who are not educated to the democratic requirements of Equal Justice are fated to lose their liberty and rights. If Trial by Jury is not soon restored, statism, tyranny, crime and strife will spread to all aspects of life.
    westminsters pirates

    The purpose of LAWFUL REMEDY is to get you asking questions about the status quo in the United Kingdom at the present time. You are guided to question your own understandings about certain 'authorities', the UK government and the banking system. There is also guidance on where to look for further information and lawful remedy.

    If you are certain that your government has your best interests at heart, and that you get all the information you need from the 'mainstream media' - read no further. There is nothing here that would interest you. Put the kettle on and see what's on the telly instead. However, if you are fed-up of being lied to, ignored, stealth taxed, CCTV'd, fined and otherwise ripped-off. If you have watched your rights being slowly eroded away. If you want to find remedy in a peaceful and lawful way - please read on.

    What is going on?

    We have a Prime Minister we have not elected.

    We are involved in two unwinnable wars; wars which only serve to further enrich the already super-wealthy, wars which have killed many of our brave soldiers, and horrifically injured many more. More soldiers have been killed than there have been 'victims of terror'. Who are our troops really supposed to be protecting? Bring them home to their families and loved ones now. Lets spend our tax money on repairing those lives shattered by these wars, and on building a better Britain - for all of us. You can no longer live your life in privacy without your movements being recorded somewhere. The CCTV apparatus which is supposed to protect us, can be all too quickly converted into the apparatus of oppression. When we really need CCTV, where is it? What happened to the CCTV footage of the 7/7 bombers' movements prior to the attacks? Why is it not in the public domain? Does it even exist?

    "If the lie is big enough, the People will fall for it" ~ Adolf Hitler

    Simply by going about your normal life, you can become criminalized and fined for the most arbitrary reasons. The police who are sworn to protect us from murderers, rapists and other criminal scum are seeing their roles reduced to being revenue collectors, where the 'tax' takes the form of fines. Police who want to do their sworn duty are being buried under reams of paperwork, simply to provide junk statistics for politicians and the media to wrangle over. The level of corruption in the UK is staggering. Not one of the chiseling MPs involved in the expenses scandal has been brought to anything resembling justice. Giving the money back may mitigate, but does not negate the crime. A criminal in a Saville Row suit is still a criminal! The UK is both morally and financially bankrupt.

    The CSA/CMEC is forcing families further apart, creating a pay-per-view situation for non-resident parents and creating non-resident parent poverty with their rampant incompetence and unlawful abuse of power. Some of the most powerful positions on Earth have now been usurped by psychopaths; people without love, mercy or remorse. They learn to imitate the affections and emotions of decent, loving people to hide their true intent. They work to ensure that others of their kind are in position to shield them, as they feed on the misery of others. You may wonder why bullying is rife in schools, in the public sector, and in industry. You may wonder why bullies always seem to escape adequate punishment. Psychopaths are always the driving force behind war, often condemning millions to misery and death. Learn to identify them, and expose them at every turn. Psychopaths are not too hard to spot; they are the ones who suck-up to anyone in authority over them, bully peers who may be a threat to their progress, and bully those in subordinate positions.

    Any abundance in our society is obscene - as long as children anywhere are dying for lack of basic necessities like clean water. Any perceived abundance is achieved only at the expense of precious natural resources and the misery of millions of ordinary people. Politicians are useless at solving problems, so why ask them to? Politicians do not have the skills to solve problems, only to create them. It is Inventors and engineers who really solve problems, but politicians are always there to take the credit.

    Being a slave is bad enough, without having to pay for your own food, shelter and shackles. An advert appears on your TV threatening to crush your car. I hope I am not the only one who compares this to 'Big Brother' in George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty Four'. Here are some reminders of this type of advert: