Ruling giving Bahraini prince immunity for involvement in torture of political prisoners overturned VIDEO
The blockage to the due administration of Justice in England
PUBLIC INTEREST NOTICE: The blockage to the due administration of Justice in England
(Prepared by Elizabeth J. Watson on 6 September 2014)

A startling wake up call is needed here! Why? Because it has become fully apparent that there is nothing tangible in the way HM Courts are being run in England, to define a constitutionally established court of civil or criminal jurisdiction for determination of disputes as to our legal rights and liabilities, within the UK at this time. (See Archbold quote of "offences against public justice" and Lord Diplock's explanation to the various ways the due administration of justice might be prejudiced - Times Newspapers (1974) v. Att-Gen Lord Diplock)

I. Members of the Public using HM Courts are often being falsely labelled "vexatious litigants" when in reality, they are nothing more than "respondents" seeking to defend their homes, rights and properties from the scourge of usury and fraud: but their right to access to Justice via court is severely encumbered by the hidden agenda of the major financial institutions which fund the very Arena being offered for this purpose!

II. Members of the Public and Court users are frequently unjustly criticised by the Legal Profession as submitting "unsubstantiated" claims, but what IS 'unsubstantiated' above all else, is the following:-

* "Unsubstantiated" is the System that is funding HM Courts,
* and the very thing that defines a genuine "court" that has true authority and true power, appears to be missing
* what is completely 'unsubstantiated' is "fiat money" that is issued as debt (usury) - desecrating our Economy
* ironically, most "cases" that are brought to HM Court by major banks are built upon unsubstantiated lies of usury
* Indeed, it is usury or 'fiat money' that is funding HM Courts and all HM departments: a grave conflict of interests!
* There is no independence because of no separation between Parliament & the Judiciary: also funded by usury

III. For example: what constitutes a genuine "Court order" from a forged (or falsified) one? Ditto, all court instruments. Court orders are being used as financial instruments, so they need to be clearly definable!

IV. British courts via "HM Courts" have nothing to define them, nor any standard to be upheld or complied with: for example, nor what constitutes an "issued" claim from one that has never been issued? What has to happen?

V. Not what defines a VALID "court seal" from a false seal ? How do the Public tell the difference?

VI. nor what constitutes an 'abuse of process' when a claim or order isn't even sealed and so can't be held "in contempt"? (contempt being both a ' civil' and / or a 'criminal' contempt, depending if there is a victim and if so, depending on the impact on the victim/s: How many amongst us are victims of false Claims, and persecuted therefrom?)

VII. nor what a genuine "Court of record is" as opposed to a Secret Court or a star chamber that holds only selective or 'no records', (no different to ' selective listening') - and indeed, what constitutes a "record"? viz: what has to happen to create a 'record' in a genuinely run Court?

VIII. Think it through - how can we place confidence in something that has nothing to define its processes and products and services? Where no standard has been set to be upheld to protect its users?

It otherwise leaves the People of England 'wide open' and exposed to the common practice continuing of abusing HM Courts to create false 'court instruments' like bogus 'bankruptcy orders', false 'possession orders', false 'care orders' etc etc all obtained without any access to Justice or fair hearing and often without examining any evidence based on the lie of "discretion" - in order to steal our property, our assets, our homes, even our children, our rights, our liberty, our peace of mind, all because there is no 'due administration of Justice' and access to this is blocked off.


(i) Her Majesty's "courts" are not real courts unless they are run independently without vested interest
(ii) and allow fair hearings before our peers with codified application of Law (not discretion)
(iii) and are run with a STRICT CODE OF COMPLIANCE, with defined terms that meet an honest standard
(iv) With a clear definition of what constitutes "abuse of process" and "contempt of court"
(v) with appropriate penalties for misusing the Court for private purposes, or acting in a private capacity
(vi) None of us are answerable to courts - they are answerable to the People with a purpose to access Justice
(v) PUBLIC JUSTICE requires that the Courts are meant to be there to serve us in accessing and in the administration of Justice through due process of Law and applying codified and equitable Principles upon which all Law is written, with a prime focus on facilitating access to our right to a fair hearing, viz:

ABUSE OF PROCESS (Archbold, offences against public justice)

Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced:

"The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civiljurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; Secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law;and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"

  • Uniform Commercial Code Notice of Dishonour against the UK VIDEO

    UCC enables a human victim of dishonourable humans and corporations to follow due process of Cease & Desist Notice, Notice of Dishonour before Commercial lien (to shut down a business or seize assets). Most solicitors, barristers and judges have never heard of it. It is the only route to REMEDY crimes by corporations and public servants acting outside their oaths of office - in this case Police failing to investigate paedophile rings in the UK and Ireland despite evidence given by child bride Ruby Akhtar , , ,
    Disturbing number of jewish lawyers and judges in Britain's KEY legal positions
    jewish lawyers in germany The ratio of NAzionist leaning lawyers and judges in the TOP legal jobs is cause for serious concern as most of the major problems concerning men are the way the legal system persecutes and thieves from them.

  • A list of prominent Jews from the United Kingdom HERE
  • The more corrupt the nation, the more laws it needs VIDEO
    Systematic abuse by British, Austrian and German establishment over property theft

    Sonia Poulton interviews Barbara and Peter Hofschröer from 28.50 after first attempt failed as 12.10

    From: Peter Hofschröer []
    Sent: May-07-14 12:16 PM

    Dear Mr Gauck,

    You have spent your life fighting injustice and state-organised crime. I am hoping there is one serious injustice and state-organised crime you can help me fight.

    Two days ago, my 85 year-old mother Barbara Hofschröer, a British citizen, was kidnapped by the German police. She is now a "disappeared" person and I fear for her life. The same German police officers who forced entry into our flat in Germany, where we took refuge six months ago, attacked me, tortured me for four hours and then released me without charging me with having committed a criminal offence. I was imprisoned without lawful reason. In those four hours, they abducted my wheelchair-bound mother. They are refusing to tell me what they have done with her.

    In 1948, my mother met and married my father Paul Hofschröer, a German prisoner of war, who later worked in the German Embassy in London. When they retired in 1986, they moved from London to York, where they bought a house. About the same time, I started working in Germany and later in Austria. When, in 2008, my parents became so feeble, they needed care, I moved into their house in York to look after them.

    However, they had been targeted by the police and social services, who were determined to defraud them of their assets. When I got in the way, many attempts were made to arrest me. I fought back. Lord Maginnis raised our case in the British Parliament several times, openly accusing the British authorities of corruption. The government refused to act and my mother and I - by now my father had died as a result of this stress - fled to my house in Austria, where we sought refuge. The British police pursued us through Interpol and the Austrian authorities supported them, forcing us to flee to Germany, where we expected to be given protection and support. Instead of that, yesterday morning ten or more German police officers broke down the door of or flat, attacked me, punched me so hard I fell to the floor, then jumped on me, before handcuffing me. Pepper was sprayed into my eyes at point blank range. I was then tortured for four hours in a police cell, while my mother was kidnapped. Like my mother, I am a registered invaild and am defenceless against such brutality.

    Nobody will tell me where my mother is. She is chronically ill and needs medication to keep her alive. She is not getting that medication. If you think I am making up this story, please go to: There you will see more about the story and part of the evidence. And this is what Lord Maginnis said in the British Parliament on our case: “The Hofschroer case has been on my desk for several years now. A widow in her 80s was dispossessed of her home in a way that implies collusion between certain family members and the Social Services. A son who has come to the rescue has been harried by the North Yorkshire police (that particularly dubious constabulary merits careful investigation) to the extent that he and his aged mother have been pursued through an Interpol warrant to their “refuge” in Austria.

    “Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son? Are details of dismissals, forced retirements and other shady and costly measures pertaining to North Yorkshire Police available to legislators in Parliament? “

    For all I know, the German police may already have killed my mother. Can you please let me know what has happened to her?

    Yours sincerely, Peter Hofschröer


  • Much more on the brutal abuse of George here
  • Cameras in British courts 'within five years'?
    But definitely NOT to see the plundering of crooked judges and lawyers during family court sessions only those that make the legal mafia look good during the sentencing of crimes that are far less criminal than their own vast criminality. We have been arguing for decades that you can walk down any main street in Britain and be caught on CCTV right up to the steps of a court and then the legal mafia ensure NOTHING can be captured of their vast criminality and protects the biggest terrorists on the planet the law society who NEVER want to be caught on CCTV themselves. We have also no doubt they have secret cameras and microphones that cannot be accessed by the general public hidden behind their wall of secrecy and to ensure they alone control the video and audio captured.

    Cameras could broadcast live from criminal courts in Britain within the next five years, the ex-top prosecutor Keir Starmer has predicted.

    The former Director of Public Prosecutions said the heightened interest in trials televised abroad such as that of Oscar Pistorius strengthened the argument for cameras in UK courts. In his first interview since stepping down last October, he said it was 'odd' that the public know more about the legal system in other countries than our own, where footage is banned. 'The case for cameras in courts really gets stronger and stronger,' he said. 'The principle is open justice and there's a disconnect between the fact we've got a right to walk into any court but it can't be screened. Most people don't have the time to go to court and therefore they don't know what's going on in courts.

    'And it is odd that I suspect in most households the legal system in Italy because of the Amanda Knox case, in South Africa because of the Pistorius case and then the US because of OJ Simpson are better known than their own legal systems. Most people know something about those cases. 'When you cut all that with the fact you can now use Twitter in court, the case becomes compelling.' He stated that 'I think that there's only one direction of travel. I would be very surprised if in the next five years we haven't moved on again.'

    Since he first cautiously backed the idea trials three years ago, he said screening of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had gone ahead successfully and it is now a 'moving issue'. He suggested courts could start by putting sentencing hearings on camera, and over time extend their reach to witness testimony. Mr Starmer, a human rights barrister at London's Doughty Street chambers, dismissed criticism that putting trials on television would cause witnesses to play to the cameras, saying there was no evidence of this from other countries.

    In disturbing scenes from the Pistorius trial – which returned to TV screens this week – the athlete is seen breaking down in tears while giving evidence. But Mr Starmer said: 'I think it's only a soap opera because it's the only one. If you say no cameras, and its therefore a very odd and strange thing, it becomes sensational. The way to deal with that I think is to make it the norm across all cases. 'If you look at any of the big cases of the past week, Max Clifford or Constance Briscoe, they are headline news because the public want to know about them. And what you get is journalists at court describing in detail what's happening, so you don't avoid that by not having a camera. Make it the norm and it becomes the norm.'

    But Mr Starmer, who is working on a justice review for the Labour party which will include new proposals for a Victims' Law, warned that judges would need powers to exempt evidence from vulnerable people or children from being broadcast. He said similar arguments were made against live television broadcasting from Parliament, which was only allowed in 1989, around 60 years after it was first proposed. 'It's a moving issue now, it's gradually changing and I think we will get there and it will then become the norm', he said. 'It has become the norm with Parliament.

    'There was great worry that if Parliament was televised people would act to the camera, but we now regularly see clips on the news and people know more about what it does and that's a good thing. 'I think opposition to the idea is lessening. By seeing trials, the public will better understand what's going in. But I also think the scrutiny would improve criminal justice. 'If a torch is shone, that tends to improve things. Speed and efficiency of cases would be improved. Our legal system sometimes moves slowly and constant scrutiny helps with issues of efficiency.' The ban on cameras in court has been in place since the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

    Among critics of overturning it are the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who has warned televising criminal trials would be disruptive and deter witnesses from giving evidence. He said there had been incidents in New Zealand when it was introduced of 'cheers and boos' from the gallery. Helena Kennedy QC, also a leading human rights barrister and peer spoke out against cameras in courts six months ago. She said television 'seeks the salacious and the sensational'. She said: 'Such exposure will put witnesses off, discourage victims even if their faces are not on screen and distort the behaviour of lawyers and judges.'

    She added: 'Fear and anxiety will multiply for those involved and public trust will decrease… Transparency does not mean the whole country has to see highlights like the goals in a football match.' The Ministry of Justice say they intend to extend filming into crown courts for sentencing 'in due course' but no date has been given. Last year Helen Grant, then a justice minister said: 'We believe televising court proceedings will help improve transparency and bring greater public confidence and understanding of the criminal justice system. 'We want to modernise the system and make the courts accessible to the public, whilst ensuring correct procedures are in place to safeguard all participants.'

  • UK Common Law Grand Juries 04 April 2014 VIDEO
    Jury Rights Billboard Campaign Infuriates Prosecutors VIDEO
    Camera's in courts? But only the bits crooked judges allow
    court camera BBC 'TODAY' programme, 31st October 2013:

    John Humphrys telling that there was to be a landmark happening in the Court of Appeal, in that TV cameras are to be in the courtroom. He interviewed a journalist/artist who produced drawings of people in court. Both spoke as though taking notes in court was allowed. It is not (except by permission of the judge). For Public & Press, taking notes is just as much 'Contempt' as using a camera, & subject to the same penalty of two years in prison.

    If an usher notices a person in the Public Gallery taking notes & tells the judge, the judge may order the person to stop. Though this is not enforced on a regular basis, it is far from unknown. Comment is often made that Press reporters are allowed to take notes. They are not, being no more allowed to do so than members of the public. However, unless the judge has specifically stated that there must be no reporting, it is normally taken as read that they have asked for permission & it has been granted, . My own (informed) view is that the banning of cameras is for the worst of reasons, the arguments in favour being specious & spurious. I DO speak with authority on this - as you know well! We are told, "Only people doing wrong need fear CCTV cameras" (as Himmler might have said!) Why then are judges so terrified of cameras in court?

    Norman Scarth, Veteran of the Arctic Convoys of WW2, forced to flee the land of my birth to escape further persecution as a result of my exposure of the corruption which is rampant in the British courts. If the BBC would LIKE to know more you could contact me at

    You won't of course, the BBC being determined to keep from the public the true state of Quisling ruled Britain! NS.

  • The illusion that judges and lawyers will be on camera BUT not when they are stealing trillions from men in divorce
  • Greenwald's partner challenges Heathrow search and confiscation at the high court VIDEO
    International Law? VIDEO
    Strawman Recapture Detailed Explanation VIDEO

    Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - Dream Of Life
    The genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern government has corrupted by legislation; a counterfeit which is "common law" in name only.

    Common law does not include any statutes made by government or decisions made by judges.

    Common law is emphatically neither "government-made" nor "judge-made." Quite the contrary: it is exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people. Modern usurpation notwithstanding, common law does not consist of case precedents (stare decisis), for juries decide the law, which includes the sentence, in each individual case.

    Nor is it comprised of judicial rulings, decisions or interpretations of statutes.

    Common law does not ever or in any way come from government judges. Indeed, common law is the antithesis (the ‘opposite’) of judge-made law, and it is supposed to free all the people equally from the shackles of arbitrary government and their bidden employees.

    Common law is the law of all the people: it forms the Supreme Law which binds government and legally controls the personnel of government’s modus operandi. In recognition of this latter fact, the Common Law Trial by Jury is inserted into the Constitution as the sole justice system for all crimes (infractions of laws and regulations), civil, criminal and fiscal.

    Having established what common law is, one must note the extent to which the term common law has been abused. It is an opprobrium to misinform people that "common law" is a product of judges, stare decisis, and government courts. Worse though: it is utterly wrong to allow government to rob the people of their true common law and its power of emancipation.

    It is unconstitutional to amend in effect The Constitution’s installation of the common law Trial by Jury Justice System by co-opting the common law by legislation into a body of law legislated by congress or parliament, or made by judges. For this has been the illegal means of burying genuine common law and the authentic Trial by Jury, to enable government to obliterate the People’s ability (peacefully) to protect their liberties for themselves.


    “This is a short video of the corruption at the Inland Revenue; who conspired with High Court 'Judges' and the Police to pervert the course of Justice. Trial by Jury is the ONLY answer to this Government’s Tyranny.”

    "I will I, Patrick Cullinane, will demonstrate outside the Royal Courts of In-Justice for FOUR days, starting Tue 1st October 2013, to RESTORE the Rule of Law and banish the Rule of JUDGES from the Kangaroo Courts in the UK but only if 150 other people from the UK will do the same. We the People in the UK have been denied our GUARANTEED RIGHTS to due-process via the Common Law Trial by Jury, which is the Law of the Land."
    — Patrick Cullinane, Common Law Lawyer & Caseworker for IBRG (contact)

    Deadline to sign up by: 25th September 2013 Country: United Kingdom

    I, Patrick Cullinane, wrote to my MP Nick Hurd via the team on 29 January 2013 re Kangaroo Courts and Common Law Trial by Jury. Nick Hurd has NOT even sent me an acknowledgement.

    The UK is a Common Law Jurisdiction and the Judges and COLLUDING MPs are committing TREASON: -

    Note how the COLLABORATORS call in the Psychiatrists’ when you start to expose their CORRUPTION and start to look for JUSTICE: - Patrick Cullinane's address in the House of Commons on 23 April 2009

    Feel free to email us on with any comments, problems or suggestions.

    In the beginnings of the structure of society, people were subjected to brutal and blind but openly applied force - nowadays - to ' law ' which is the same force , only disguised . In popular parlance a policeman - a bully and an oppressor is presented as ' the law ' ! Above certain level all of them are ' homo brutanicus ' .

    The supposed necessity of ' law ' and authority is so firmly planted in the average mind that living without ' government ' , is almost unthinkable to most people . The same people , on the other hand , will admit that rules , regulations , taxes , bureaucracy and abuse of power are frustrating to say the least . But these things are usually thought to be worth suffering in silence because the alternative - no ' authority ' , everybody doing what they pleased would be horrible . It would be anarchy !

    It starts with compulsory schooling . The idea is not to educate, but to indoctrinate using various means including religion which helps maintaining the pretences of ' lawfulness ' encouraging to act as ' a good boy ' ( ' Christian ' ) so if they want to hit you again and again offer the other cheek allowing them to have fun hurting you . As the result , most people , put on themselves muzzles and even walk around barking gibberish as something supposedly ' politically correct ' ?! By pretending that there can be success by peaceful demonstrations , creating committees and organisations that can be easily monitored , infiltrated and manipulated they diffuse real opposition and do not give them a slightest chance of winning . So often ' red herrings ' are thrown in - to engage people in discussions to confuse them , divide them , manipulate them , corrupt them , create doubt , keep them busy , entertained or arguing with each other .

    The general rule is that there is a profit in confusion ; the more confusion , the more profit .

    The struggle against an entrenched ' system ' ( supported by a large mass of the population who have submitted to its deceptive , illusory techniques ) is extremely difficult without cooperative support of other people . There is a great deal of fear to overcome , deliberately instigated confusion , and a lack of alternatives that are practical , effective and are convincing to a population now under the rule of the ' New World Order ' as they call themselves .

    The system is oppressive, and often brutal , but that is no problem as long as others are the victims . The persecution and intimidation takes place within the legal system when the powers , which decide to label you as the enemy , use all their wicked and immoral means to silence anyone who would change the conditions under which they thrive .

    In Australia during early colonial times people belonging to so called ' authority ' = ' homo brutanicus ' had good reasons to feel like semi gods . External control ( mother England ) was far , far away . Even symbolic internal control did not exist , any dissent ended up in hanging . That tradition did not die out - the arrogance , bullying , intimidation and lawlessness remain prevailing features of todays generation of ' homo brutanicus ' .

    On the bottom level the policeman ( the ' law ' ) remains an element of the wider scenery of the clique in legal industry where all parts ( police , lawyers , magistrates/judges ) collaborate to maintain the legend that ' you cannot win ' so you better resign , submit and stop dreaming about ' justice ' . Such assertion belongs to a world we had left behind long time ago - the Dark Ages!.

    From A History of Freedom of Thought By John Bagnell Bury

    The average brain is naturally lazy and tends to take the line of least resistance. The mental world of the ordinary man consists of beliefs which he has accepted without questioning and to which he is firmly attached; he is instinctively hostile to anything which would upset the established order of this familiar world. A new idea, inconsistent with some of the beliefs which he holds, means the necessity of rearranging his mind; and this process is laborious, requiring a painful expenditure of brain?energy. To him and his fellows, who form the vast majority, new ideas, and opinions which cast doubt on established beliefs and institutions, seem evil because they are disagreeable.

    The psychological motives which produce a conservative spirit hostile to new ideas are reinforced by the active opposition of certain powerful sections of the community, such as a class, a caste, or a priesthood, whose interests are bound up with the maintenance of the established order and the ideas on which it rests.

    How and why you should fight ALL fines – by an ex-Police Sergeant.

    My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant of Police in Victoria for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor at times, so I know what I am talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates Court during my time in the Force. I was only ever a very fair copper, and I am proud of my time in the job, looking after the interests of Victorians, often to the detriment of my family and my health. I never booked any driver for a trifling offence “ever”. People committing trifling offences commonly used to get a warning and a licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious before I booked anyone.

    I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in what I call “Indiscriminate revenue gathering” It is absolutely disgusting. The government and the Police Force need to hang their heads in shame. If you did a survey of current serving members of the police forces in this country, you would be hard pushed to find many who disagree with me. I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the system. This is how to do it, and if about 10% of all drivers booked follow my specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to stop issuing fines for every type of traffic offence. The whole lot of them. Seriously.

    I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I think it’s about time someone stood up for hard working, civil minded, law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed. This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and the courts by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.


    1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid reasons to dispute every single alleged offence. Often the charges are incorrect or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.

    2. Challenge it, tell them that you are going to defend the matter. Make them earn their miserable $150 or $200 or whatever. They have to prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator or the Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual fine. You are also taking a camera operator or a member of the Police Force off the street for the day. But it won’t get to that point… on….

    3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask for a delay to a time and place that suits you.

    4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep pleading not guilty all through the process. You have every right to be sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any legitimate reason. For example you may have pressing family or work commitments which prevent you from attending a particular court on a particular day.

    5. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if everyone does this) and if you are unwell that day, ring the court in the morning and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera operator, and a police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be greatly inconvenienced, by having to come back another day. The whole time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic camera office is huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. …..with me so far…..keep reading…….

    6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by people who wanted “their day in court” that it simply will not be able to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and this is obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any revenue raised. If all the above fails, which is highly unlikely….and you actually go to court and get convicted……you have a right of appeal. Make sure you appeal the conviction. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see what happens. They are not going to spend millions chasing hundreds.

    7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offences, and the entire system will crash within a few weeks.


    Regards, Stan



    A multi-billion-dollar court fight involving Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich, and his former business partner Boris Berezovsky, is underway in London. Berezovsky has accused Abramovich of using political intimidation to force him to sell Russia's fourth-biggest oil firm at a knockdown price. Abramovich, the world's 68th richest man, with an estimated fortune of $12bn, denies the charges and says he merely paid Berezovsky money for political cover and protection.
    You will see endlessly on TV advocates wheeled on proclaiming that only the 'rule of law' will ensure justice and stability in countries that support that agenda. However closer inspection reveals that the very bastards that promote the 'rule of law' do NOT operate within the 'rule of law' but act as if they are above the law.

    In the UK anyone who would even DARE to try and drag the Royal parasite into one of HER law courts would find an unprecedented campaign of persecution would descend upon them from every conceivable source ensuring that a pursuer would NOT even get past the first hurdle. This would include the parasites vast army of freemasons embedded within the judicial mafia and down through the ranks of HER henchmen ALL protected from that 'RULE OF LAW' by the crown who control almost every aspect of life through a sinister secret society network. What we see in the compliant media that exposes criminality are the petty criminals whose theft pales dramatically next to the Royal parasites thieves. ONLY her hand picked lackeys can steal your home and kick you onto the streets with complete impunity and under the 'rule of law' or at least laws these evil bastards make up as they go along.

    No man who married could actually believe when that marriage broke up the state mobsters acting for HER majesty could move in and remove everything a man has ever worked for, but that has become a daily occurrence with vast plundering of estates under the guise of family law or the 'rule of law' that keeps HER MAJESTY in the lifestyle she and her henchmen think they deserve by shuffling a few A4 sheets of paper around and with the solitary signature of one of her vile henchmen.

    The power of HER judicial henchmen knows no bounds and millions of men have the psychological, if not physical, scars to show how these mobsters operate behind closed doors ensuring their crimes cannot be recorded, many an activist jailed for daring to catch them on video or audio. Until the peasants rise up and look behind the false facade of righteousness HER media constantly brainwash the public with, this tyranny will carry on plundering and getting away with far more than any wars create. HER courts are the modern day equivalent of the feudal powers kings and queens used to wipe out towns and villages but could not get away with today, so they have far more subtle , devious and dangerous ways to remove you from your life and possessions. There are a mountain of dead men's bodies founded on the back of HER evil 'RULE OF LAW'.

    For men who are unaware that the biggest risk to their lives are the power of judges and at some point almost all men face the consequences of a worldwide masonic judicial cabal hell bent on using crown courts and laws, devised by freemasons within the legal system, to destroy men not part of their creepy satanic cult.

    If the methods used in anglo ' legal ' system were adopted in other areas of human endeavours we , as humanity , would be still in the stone age .

    No search for truth , no discovery process , no logical analysis of facts , no reasoning , no rationality , no sensibility . Instead - lies , pretentions , deceptions , hypocrisy , play acting , faking , falsifying , rigging , doctoring , concocting .

    Enormous amount of power is put into hands of some publically unknown , unelected but secretly selected , ' trusted ' people . Who really selects them , who trusts them and WHY ? They are selected to the most exclusive club ( in large extent ' hereditary ' ) in conspiratorial/mafioso style arrangements and not ' democratic ' . They do not have any qualification , training , competency test or any sort of exams or assessments for the position they are given ! No scrutiny of their characters , no verification of their suitability to play effectively ' top dog ' in the community .

    BUT they are given absolute dominance in the society ( to both make and invalidate laws , and to control other people`s lives ) - over legislatures , the executive branch , and the people who elected these representatives . They are given ' discretionary powers ' !

    For an observer from the outer space they would look like a bunch of hereditary dictators and cruel sadists in the sea of ' democracy ' . The power of judges ( lawyers ) is not compatible with democracy !

    It is a structural problem with something that was designed to perform different functions than those which are presented for public consumption - and that appears to be unmendable problem at least to those who are involved with that system one way or the other .

    Other possible explanation is that this is the system devised in the Middle Ages , an archaic and feudal system with supposedly a benevolent master knowing the best what and how to do everything - and the flunky`s irrevocably had to accept the masters decision . Regardless how idiotic and illogical it was they were obliged to praise the master for his wisdom . That anachronic system survived in spite of the change of the society from masters and slaves into the equal citizens ( well , almost ' equal ' ) .

    With the external theatrics in appearance which is described as ' respect for tradition ' comes internal theatrics presented as ' fairness for all ' and ' respect for procedures ' . ' Begging ' , ' pleading ' - are overused expressions designed to reinforce the idea that the final deal is the result not of reasoning and impartiality but the graciousness and ' favour ' of the master who has to be pleased before uttering some phrases which usually have to be translated by the ' initiated ' before can be understood .

    A system that allows such culture of perfidious manipulations to continue , in spite of claimed existence of checks and balances , is basically fatally flawed system . It is made on purpose to remain stagnant , locked in time through the structural set up intended to paralyse any attempts to change it , to paralyse any sensible critique , to paralyse disclosure of abuse and cruelty .

    It is one of the more insidious aspects of ' democracy ' that people ( voters , citizens ) do not have absolutely any say in the selection of ' judges ' . People are given symbolic ' rights ' like shifty in its design ' the right to be represented in court by a lawyer ' ( intended to fill up lawyers pockets ) but NOTHING of the practical value to control state affairs . All those ' judges ' , are ( technically ) chosen by ' governments ' , the administrative clique from the ' ruling ' party . They have to make pretences that they follow the law ( constitution ) by seemingly sharing a part of their power with the ' independent body ' - judiciary .

    They are faced with 2 options -

    - (a) to select people truly honest , fair , knowledgeable , who have high moral and ethical values and are respected as such BUT who likely will speak their minds when seeing injustice , dishonesty , unfairness,

    - (b) to select people who proved themselves useful puppets , deprived of any scruples when pursuing the ' career ' and privileges and who , without much prompting , will know what is expected of them .

    Since ' democracy ' is based on lies , dishonesty and pretences - people in power would be idiots

    if they selected someone from group (a) . It is not about demonstrating righteousness , intellectual or philosophical proves but about shrewdness , cunning , slyness and deception .

    Therefore , someone from group (b) is chosen and heavily promoted as belonging to group (a) - from time to time play acting the differences of opinion , which is arranged behind closed door ( today lets make it look as you are winning , tomorrow it will be my turn ) .

    As the result of selection of unsuitable people as our ' judges ' :

    - tradition of ' kangaroo courts ' is maintained instead of fair and just court proceedings

    - criminally minded mafia members interests are protected instead of interests of the society on which behalf those ' judges ' are supposed to operate

    - corruption and rottenness of the ' legal system ' is deepened

    One of the strangest peculiarities of this ' legal system ' is the fact that once a judge makes a decision he/she cannot change it himself in order to maintain the illusion of own infallibility . His/her decisions can be only changed very reluctantly by a higher court .

    Disallowing the judge to admit and amend own mistakes and errors leads to the increase of the fictionality of ' infallibility ' . Such attitude spreaded from judges to barristers and the fiction of ' infallibility ' and always doing the right thing is foolishly guarded by all elements of the legal industry leading to the degeneration of the noble principles which the legal industry claims to be protecting .

    During Stalin`s times in Russia there was a ' troyka ' system maintaining the illusion of the existence of some kind of judicial system , where all 3 members of the ' troyka ' were acting in collusion against the accused person . Such ' troyka ' is well and alive in Queensland where judge , prosecutor and ' defence ' lawyer cooperate in facilitating achieving the conviction in the orderly way , making pretences of fairness and independence and seemingly obeying rules created to confuse the observers and the unfortunate unfamiliar participant(s) . Court hearing is a choreographed event where all accomplices know their roles and the limits of their acting .

    In this legal system a herring can be ` legally ` , ` lawfully ` proven as being a type of horse if judge ` accepts ` the evidence that a herring has eyes just like a horse , rejects every other piece of evidence to the contrary and dresses up his/her decision in crafty , meaningless phrases which cannot be challenged by lawyers because they are ` officers of the court ' bound to ` loyalty ` by the enforced discipline . Since they are dependent on the goodwill of licence givers , the Queensland lawyers eagerly participate in the role designated to them - pacification of human anger at the injustices and orderly handling subjects into submission .

    Therefore you cannot even dream that those people will attempt to improve the system, their fortunes are tied up to being obedient and maintaining the status quo . ( If you think that this is exaggeration please do recall the ' legal ' battle to have the game played 90% of the time with ' foot ' forbidden to be called ' football ' ( ' soccer ' - was meant to be deriding ) and a game played 10% of the time with ' foot ' to be called ' football ' .)

    How can we ever forget about another pearl of the system . Some mongrels called ' lords ' invented the rule that - ' The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof ' ( The Nuremberg Trials - Charter of the International Military Tribunal - article 21 ) . What can be considered to be ' facts of common knowledge ' - anything what you desire , eg . ' pedal-driven brain bashing machine ' or soap from jewish dead bodies or lampshades from human skins , all became facts not needing to be proven !

    Why this is happening ? - Aim could be to irritate people with obvious idiocy with the hope that they will act in irrational way out of frustration and if out of desperation they do something silly then they can be ` justifiably ` branded ` criminals ` , ` antisocial elements ` and similar epithets . Creating the falsehood of mysterious complexity about the `law` , purposeful confusion of the simplest of procedures and pretentious adherence to ostentatious desire for fairness serves exclusively very narrow group of people who contribute nothing to the community but through their privileges and machinations suck up its resources . The system main strength is the collusion between various interest groups who have only one thing in common - pretending that they have public interest in heart while filling up own pockets .

    This is not happening in Nigeria or Kazakhstan or similar places favoured by people ' concerned ' about abuses of law and justice and so often ridiculed by Australian propaganda as rotten and corrupt - this is happening in Queensland , Australia . Secondly , in places like Nigeria or Kazakhstan they still have few people honest enough to stand up to abuses of justice and power by those in power .

    Like in every rotten and corrupt system the attitude of lawyers and judges towards the rest of the society is not going to change by itself - it has to be demanded by the society , those people have to understand that facts are not going to stop existing only because they are ignored .

    An obvious question comes to mind ( ancients and temporaries ) - who is judging the judges ? Propagated is a ridiculous assumption that by getting a title ' judge ' one becomes automatically an intellectual and moral giant . However in practice , being a career ' apparatchik ' does not make one a good candidate for a judge since such person does nothing to test his/her judicial capacities .

    Judges are immune and isolated from community judgement and any criticism of them is balanced by the claim of possessing alleged expertise in the field which is made purposefully vague , therefore even complete dishonesty and incompetency in that field is shrouded in legal mystique of procedural fiction . Since there are no effective checks and balances of judiciary and their performance the community members easily can be subjected to tyranny and hegemony of the ' bench ' in the name of ' justice '.

    Legal community in Australia , so vocal when it comes to alleged injustice , unfairness or persecution in far away countries , is a bit shy when it comes to such things happening in their own front yard . They are doing nothing to get rid of rotten eggs within themselves and it is wrong not only from legal point of view but also moral and ethical . Unfortunately the claimed ' ethics ' in legal profession are actually terrorist methods of maintaining solidarity and monopoly of profession .

    They are often described as ' society of mutual adoration ' for a good reason .

    This is the true picture of people in the legal industry - those so loud about the issues of honesty , justice , fairness and the truth when it involves other members of our society . There is also important question of morality , ethics and human decency in the sense as understood by most people but misconstrued by the manipulative perfidy of the system .

    If it was disclosed as happening in any other non anglo country lawyers and judges here would be jumping up and down full of indignation at the blatant abuse of the civilized principles . However , when it happens under their noses , in their own jurisdiction , by not taking any action and pretending that they do not see that , they actually show their true shameful character . I believe it is called ' participation in injustice ' .

    So , when you hear an Australian lawyer or judge making noises about ' justice ' , ' rule of law ' , ' fairness ' , ' human rights ' etc in other countries please kindly remind them that - instead of patronising , preaching and lecturing - they should firstly do in their jurisdiction , in own country what they want others to do .

    Information about my battle with the devilish forces in barbaric Queensland
    ( with the copies of relevant documents ) is on
    and some others


    Peter Markan

  • Jet-set Queensland judges spend big on overseas travel (2010)
  • ONE of Queensland's highest ranked judges today defended the judiciary (as he retires)