No, that is exactly the reason why a court decision that conflicts with the correct order of time can not stand as a factual finding with a legal existence. That is where the case for the court change's existence comes from: exactly the impossibility of making a decision that an event on 4 Aug 1995 happened after an event on 13 May 1997.

That is what the European Court of Human Rights decided. To count it as a decision that stands as a factual decision and is final, you would have to have time travel fantasies, and to evidence them. The alternative is to conclude that the decision's total factual impossibility makes it illegal and not a decision that stands or has any existence. Then you have to conclude that it was illegal for the court to print on that impossible decision "This decision is final. It is not open to any appeal either to the court or to any other body." That then leaves you with the implication that the court's whole present status is illegal, and that the illegality lies in being able to call any decision final.

Sidewinder, try going one sentence at a time.

Any reasoned factual claim can only be made into drivel by refuting one of the factual steps cited in its support. Anyone who wants to refute this item has to take the responsibility of stating that a court can decide that 2 dated events happened in reverse order than their date order in time, and have it stand as a factual finding and decision that time went backwards.

Anyone who is willing to state that must realise they have stated that court evidence no longer has any tie to verifiable reality. They are invited to advise accordingly what folks involved in court cases that hinge on critical facts should do about it. Anyone who is not willing to state that a court can make a final decision that time went backwards and have that stand as a finding of law, has not refuted the court change's reality.

Even though it's good for ordinary folks for RLP to lose its court case, it can't be cited a s an outcome in which leave to appeal was refused.

CLG reported that that happened to RLP too. But a silence by the political class and the media is enabling the court system to disregard and pretend has not happened, a massive advance in democracy, that means thee is no longer such thing as leave to appeal and no power to refuse it. Instead, all court decisions are faultable open endedly. They are no longer ever final.

This is called the "court change". This is: since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".

Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that the court change has been under a media silence for 13 years, but it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. Nobody has ever offered any argument refuting the court change, because the reasons why it is real stand up to scrutiny step by step.

The court change follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.

This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

The first fault finding to make, is that all unaffordable legal costs are abolished by how they conflict with the world human rights principle of access to justice. Folks have waited centuries for a chance to say this !!! See how far reaching is the reform the court change can do once it starts?

World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system. So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Through the existence of any legal dispute that overlaps into their country, the people of countries outside the Council of Europe too can lay claim to the court change, as a massive advance in democracy.

Now that CLG has circulated a report on the RLP case and invited folks to cite it as a precedent, it has an automatic duty to legal factuality also to circulate this description of the court change.

Won this case. All through the maximum period of "continuation" the council never supplied the responsible official who could actually give answers, to attend either of the 2 meetings it had with me, and never offered a substantiation of the view that the law allowed it to refuse recognition to my appeals. So the outcome is, extracted from them only in the last few days left: they had to allow an appeal case to proceed and thus they had to dismiss their own cased in court. So I won.

On the eve of court, with hours to go, I have now got the council saying they are going to talk and to ask the sheriff to "continue" the case for 4 weeks to allow discussion.

I read on their site that you can't take things to SPSO if a court case about them is in progress.

Yes.

At the stage of cited and waiting for the hearing.

It is an error of calculation, an item that should be taken account of in the calculation. By the written law that automatically makes it a valid appeal: any item perceived and explained by the appellant as an error of calculation is a valid appeal. Hence the court would act illegally to say otherwise, and I have already written so in my defence papers.

I know the initial system for the council registering its claim to a council tax debt violates human rights by not providing for a defence case. But the sequestration procedure does provide for making a defence case, including when the case is only about council tax, as this one is.

Putting it simply:Human rights campaigning interest is needed, from any source. A dispute that should take place in a council tax appeal, and which I originally lodged as one, can't be taken to sequestration instead. A council can't be allowed to choose to ignore a council tax appeal, repeatedly, and later take the same money to sequestration.The law, and the public info on it, says there is an automatic right to make council tax appeals on any item you perceive as an error of calculation. It does not say the council has any veto over this, any power to define an appeal as not relevant and refuse to recognise it. Let alone to pursue you through court ignoring the appeal's existence. the council's petititon to the court nowhere even mentions my appeals in any way, that they were ever made. A court must not be allowed to go with that, when I have given all the hsitory of the appeals as my defence evidence.

My council (Edinburgh) is applying to sequestrate me for council tax I don't owe.

The disputed sum is big but I have more capital than its value.

I have been making a repeated appeal annually, clearly on grounds of error of calculation.

By law, anyone charged council tax has an absolute automatic right to do that, and the grounds may be anything the appellant perceives as an error of calculation.

This is explicit in all the public information on council tax appeals and in the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

It is a matter of simple exact statue law that has so shades of interpretation.

The council has no veto over my appeal: if it disagrees with it it must contest it.

But the council has for 8 years been ignoring all my appeals and refusing to recognise them,

on grounds of claiming that they are - not relevant appeals -

It has kept on sending me sheriff officer's letters in pursuit of the appealed sums.

I always answered those in full, only to get eventual repetitions of them ignoring my explanations

or else arbitrarily stating that the council has said my appeals are not appeals and do not count.

Never have they answered my point that the council has no power to do that.

Now the council has taken straight to sequestration a dispute that should have gone through a council tax appeal.

Its claims that I owe the sum simply ignores my appeals, hence must be based on claiming a power so to so, contrary to all the public info on the appeals system.

The council has always known it could dispose of the issue just by contesting one appeal and after that my council tax position would be normal again.

It can't be portrayed as reaonsable for the council to pigheadedly refuse to contest an appeal, knowing that and knowing the appeal is being repeated annually, and instead knowingly to let the situation drag on for years.

The council must also be wrong, if it thinks it has any case, knowingly to wait while a sum it intended ever to claim mounts up and becomes more intimidating. That is obviously bullying.

It has never taken any of the less drastic approaches to enforcement, e.g. bank accounts.

I have lodged as my defence, those points on the action's excessiveness, and my documentary record of the years of lodged and ignored appeals,

and the Local Government Finance Act and the public info on the right to make appeals.

It would be illegal for the court to find against me, for it would abolish the principle that folks should believe published official information on the law,

and then there would be no basis to expect me to believe and obey anything the sequestrator said either.

I have put that to both the pursuing solicitor and the nominated trustee, as a point that voids the case against me and proves only my case can be right. Neither has yet answered.

This needs all the human rights interest it can get.

I have mailed to the EHRC about it but it can take a week to know if they will respond.

I have mild autism and am actively involved in a services project run by a university that follows how services/public bodies treat folks and has already had an interest in my problem before it came to this point.

It also means I should be entitled to advocacy in any dealings with the sequestrators.

I already have a reference to contact citizen's advice within the court.

My councillor is the Lord Provost and good about keeping his community involvements...

My point about all these interested parties and as many others as possible, is so as not to be alone and unseen which would encourage the court to decide against me.

In order to establish that a decision against me is illegal, the highest possible number of parties need to have been alerted in advance of the day,

and unless their existence deters the wrong decision from happening, they watch it happen.

Then they would know instantly that the decision has abolished the believability of any published and written law to rely on as true,

and hence that I can't be expected to understand and believe any written law that the sequestrators tell me to cooperate with.

That absurdity gets thrown back at the system to prove the decision illegal and unworkable.

I think what I'm asking for here is ways to raise interest. Know any sympathetic journalists or organisations who are good at responding and making public fuss about such issues?

Can Action Group itself raise some public concern about councils bullying folks like this?

A note - if anyone finds this "over their head", the right thing to do is to go through it word by word, sentence by sentence, step by step. Each statement I have made is entirely clear, it's not full of technical stuff.

As it has a bearing on everyone's case, there is a solid responsibility not to disregard it. Anyone who is not told of it, their court case would be undermined. Everyone is entitled to know of it. There is a cover-up to stop, as you know.

This is important, re your recent case with Lloyds TSB. I have joined this forum in order to post this info, after reading of the case. I tried posting it in "Welcome to the forum" yesterday, + it just receded out of sight very quickly. Now I have discovered this section for the bank charges issue.

I read in the Metro: [ Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: "I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened." ]

This means you have found, and expressed publicly, legal fault with how a court reached a decision. You have made a reasoned objection that the court improperly ignored an aspect of law, that makes its decision wrong.

Isn't it mediaeval and corrupt that a court decision should still stand as having been made, when a judge has ignored part of the law applying to it? Hence a loophole in democracy allowing any law to be thwarted at will by the courts meant to uphold it, that anyone can conceive of calling such a decision "final" unless a "leave to appeal" is granted with the court having a choice to refuse it, and with an appeal costing money.

For 8 years! the media has covered up and determined not to acknowledge, the news that this situation has actually already been ended. It follows from illegal handling of a European Court of Human Rights case I brought in 1998-9, that because a court has committed a unarguably blatant illegality behind the mantra of "this decision is final," all legal decisions are no longer final. I call this the "court change". Anyone can see it is a massive historic advance in democracy - if its cover-up can be overcome and it is made publicly known. Until then, the system is illegally ignoring it.

Shockingly concerning how corrupt politics really is, all the big campaign groups on virtually every subject have chosen to ignore the court change and not be first to publicise its reality - even when they know it would benefit the people in whose cause they exist. This notably includes all the overseas aid charities, who should want to use the court change to help poor countries fight their debts, and could have publicised it through the make Poverty History campiagn, and all the immigration/asylum aid groups who could have used the court change to save lives by overturning the built-in injustices in the asylum system and preventing the state using corrupt short cuts to deport people to dangerous countries. This is how potent the court change is, yet everyone in charge of big campaing groups is calculating cynically that their own careers and favouredness at the top of politics are better served by ignoring the court change and taking part in its cover-up and illegal thwartation!

Whose victims now include your campaign too. You have had the law twisted to stop you winning a case you would win on fair logic.

The court change is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. (I'm in Scotland). Here are the facts of it set out simply, step by step.

Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by any party" instead of final. This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to a violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

The European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist, now requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions, and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.

So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.

America, Canada, Australia through my child brain research ethics dispute with Arizona university, stalled by an American government obstruction of justice.

Obviously there will be many cases making these 3 countries court change, so I should not be seen as seeking the ego fantasy of taking personal credit for it through my case, but time priority entitles me to put my case in the list like this.

Israel and Lebanon through the case in Belgium on the Sabra-Chatila massacres.

Kosovo through war crimes cases overlapping Yugoslavia.

North Cyprus through Turkey's UN legal challenge against South Cyprus joining the EU.

Belarus through its election dispute with OSCE election monitoring.

Vatican City through Sinead O'Connor's ordination as a Catholic priest.

Cuba through Elian Gonzalez.

Haiti through objecting to receiving petty crime deportations from America.

Antigua through its constitutional crisis on capital punishment.

Trinidad through its Privy Council case on capital punishment.

Jamaica through claims on both sides of American linked arms trade background to its violence.

Mexico through the Benjamin Felix drug mafia extradition to America.

Belize through Michael Ashcroft.

Guatemala through the child stealing and adoption scandal overlapping America.

El Salvador through the trade union related factory closure there by Nestle that made Transfair, the Fair Trade organisation in Italy, reject the Fair Trade mark for Nestle coffee.

Colombia through America's supposed human rights policy intervention in training Colombian police and military.

Venezuela through Luis Posada Carriles.

Guyana through the £12m debt claim dropped by Iceland (the shop).

Brazil through EU immigration unfairnesses to its football players, necessitating a mafia trade in false passports.

Argentina through its ECHR case on the General Belgrano.

Chile through General Pinochet.

Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay through Judge Garzon's citation of Henry Kissinger for the South American military conspiracy Operation Condor.

Chad and Senegal through a French action in Senegal obtaining Chad's former dictator Habre for trial under Pinochet's precedent.

Algeria through the Harkis' case from the Algerian war.

Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Morocco through the Insight News case.

Ivory Coast through the chocolate slavery scandal.

Ghana through the World Bank's Dora slave scandal.

Togo through the Lome peace accords for Sierra Leone, and their breaking as an issue in factional arms supply to there.

Burkina Faso through an arms trade case of smuggling through it from Ukraine to civil war factions in Sierra Leone and Angola.

Niger and Rwanda through Oxfam's case of buying an arms trade "end user certificate" for Rwanda in Niger.

Burundi through the war crimes trial of Rwanda's 1994 head of state.

Tanzania and Japan through the 2000 G8 summit, because Tanzania Social and Economic Trust broadcast a contradiction in implementing both its wishes for economic advance and its debt relief terms.

Mozambique through its cashew nuts dispute with the World Bank.

South Africa and Lesotho through a WHO case against American pharmaceutical ethics there.

Nigeria through reported Nigerian drug mafia crime in South Africa.

Dahomey and Gabon through their slave trafficking scandals overlapping Nigeria and Togo.

Zimbabwe through its land finances dispute with Britain.

Equatorial Guinea through the charges in Zimbabwe of a coup conspiracy.

Malawi through its arrests of Zimbabwean refugees callously deported from Britain.

Zambia through Cafod's collection of objections to food supply and health violations in its IMF structural adjustment program.

Namibia through the Herero genocide case against Germany.

Angola, Congo Kinshasa, Ecuador through arms trade smuggling to them from Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Congo Brazzaville through the Jean-Francois Ndenge case in France.

Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.

Madagascar, Mauretania, Nicaragua through the complaint by Jubilee USA and Africa Action that the IMF is breaking the agreed debt relief terms for them.

Ethiopia through the same, as well as earlier aid sector comment on its conditional debt relief.

Eritrea through its border dispute with Ethiopia.

Somaliland through its problem with Russian and South Korean coastal fishing.

Kenya through the Archer's Post munitions explosion case overlapping Britain.

Somalia through the UNHCR coordinator in Kenya protesting and exposing refugee deportations back to Somalia during the 2006-7 crisis there.

Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan's agreement to return children.

Mauritius through the Ilois rights judgment on the Chagos clearances.

Yemen through its problem with Spain over the missile shipment.

United Arab Emirates through Mohammed Lodi.

Saudi Arabia through the lawsuit by families of 911 victims.

Qatar through the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Bahrain through the call for American witnesses in Richard Meakin's case.

Kuwait through the terrorism arrests in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq through the weapons inspection dispute before the invasion. NB this does not mean the dispute or invasion were right!

Jordan through its threat of "unspecified measures" in its relations with Israel.

Egypt through its disputes with Tanzania and Kenya over use of Nile water.

Libya, Syria, Iran through the Lockerbie bomb trial.

Turkmenistan through Ukraine's gas pipeline dispute with Russia.

Kazakhstan through the American court action on oil contract corruption at government level there.

Uzbekistan through the ambassadorial exposee on evidence obtained by torture there and used in Western courts.

Kyrgyzia through its anti-terrorist border operations with Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan through Ben Laden.

Pakistan through a dispute between supporters of enslaved women and the British embassy for not helping them escape.

India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia through the World Wildlife Fund's campaign for tiger conservation, conflicting western romanticism with local populations affected by the homicidal absurdity of conserving a human predator.

Nepal through the Gurkhas' lawsuit for equal pay and pensions.

Vietnam through a church publicised refugee dispute overlapping China.

Cambodia through its enactment for a trial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust.

Laos through Peter Tatchell's application to arrest Henry Kissinger.

Thailand through Sandra Gregory.

Burma through the Los Angeles judgment on the Unocal oil pipeline.

Sri Lanka through its call for the Tamil Tigers' banning in Britain.

East Timor through public reaction to the judgment against trying Suharto.

Papua New Guinea through WWF's Kikori mangrove logging affair.

New Zealand through its ban on British blood donations.

Nauru through the Australian civil liberty challenge on the Tampa refugees.

Fiji through its land crisis's nonracial solubility by a Commonwealth constitutional question against rent and mortgages.

Tuvalu through environmentalist challenges to America's rejection of international agreements on global warming and sea level.

Marshall Islands through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal cases.

Philippines and Malaysia through the international police investigation in the Jaybe Ofrasio trial in Northern Ireland.

South Korea through its jurisdiction dispute with the American army.

North Korea through its apology to Japan for abductions.

That's a mean thing to say if it's a case of can't afford it.

That of course is the nonsense at the heart of the whole moneylending system, instead of having a green currency where every person can create new currency when they need it.

This is important, re your recent case with Lloyds TSB. I have joined this forum in order to post this info, after reading of the case. I read:

[ Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: "I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened." ]

This means you have found, and expressed publicly, legal fault with how a court reached a decision. You have made a reasoned objection that the court improperly ignored an aspect of law, that makes its decision wrong.

Isn't it mediaeval and corrupt that a court decision should still stand as having been made, when a judge has ignored part of the law applying to it? Hence a loophole in democracy allowing any law to be thwarted at will by the courts meant to uphold it, that anyone can conceive of calling such a decision "final" unless a "leave to appeal" is granted with the court having a choice to refuse it, and with an appeal costing money.

For 8 years! the media has covered up and determined not to acknowledge, the news that this situation has actually already been ended. It follows from illegal handling of a European Court of Human Rights case I brought in 1998-9, that because a court has committed a unarguably blatant illegality behind the mantra of "this decision is final," all legal decisions are no longer final. I call this the "court change". Anyone can see it is a massive historic advance in democracy - if its cover-up can be overcome and it is made publicly known. Until then, the system is illegally ignoring it.

Shockingly concerning how corrupt politics really is, all the big campaign groups on virtually every subject have chosen to ignore the court change and not be first to publicise its reality - even when they know it would benefit the people in whose cause they exist. This notably includes all the overseas aid charities, who should want to use the court change to help poor countries fight their debts, and could have publicised it through the make Poverty History campiagn, and all the immigration/asylum aid groups who could have used the court change to save lives by overturning the built-in injustices in the asylum system and preventing the state using corrupt short cuts to deport people to dangerous countries. This is how potent the court change is, yet everyone in charge of big campaing groups is calculating cynically that their own careers and favouredness at the top of politics are better served by ignoring the court change and taking part in its cover-up and illegal thwartation!

Whose victims now include your campaign too. You have had the law twisted to stop you winning a case you would win on fair logic.

The court change is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. (I'm in Scotland). Here are the facts of it set out simply, step by step.

Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by any party" instead of final. This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to a violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

The European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist, now requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions, and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.

So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.

America, Canada, Australia through my child brain research ethics dispute with Arizona university, stalled by an American government obstruction of justice.

Obviously there will be many cases making these 3 countries court change, so I should not be seen as seeking the ego fantasy of taking personal credit for it through my case, but time priority entitles me to put my case in the list like this.

Israel and Lebanon through the case in Belgium on the Sabra-Chatila massacres.

Kosovo through war crimes cases overlapping Yugoslavia.

North Cyprus through Turkey's UN legal challenge against South Cyprus joining the EU.

Belarus through its election dispute with OSCE election monitoring.

Vatican City through Sinead O'Connor's ordination as a Catholic priest.

Cuba through Elian Gonzalez.

Haiti through objecting to receiving petty crime deportations from America.

Antigua through its constitutional crisis on capital punishment.

Trinidad through its Privy Council case on capital punishment.

Jamaica through claims on both sides of American linked arms trade background to its violence.

Mexico through the Benjamin Felix drug mafia extradition to America.

Belize through Michael Ashcroft.

Guatemala through the child stealing and adoption scandal overlapping America.

El Salvador through the trade union related factory closure there by Nestle that made Transfair, the Fair Trade organisation in Italy, reject the Fair Trade mark for Nestle coffee.

Colombia through America's supposed human rights policy intervention in training Colombian police and military.

Venezuela through Luis Posada Carriles.

Guyana through the £12m debt claim dropped by Iceland (the shop).

Brazil through EU immigration unfairnesses to its football players, necessitating a mafia trade in false passports.

Argentina through its ECHR case on the General Belgrano.

Chile through General Pinochet.

Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay through Judge Garzon's citation of Henry Kissinger for the South American military conspiracy Operation Condor.

Chad and Senegal through a French action in Senegal obtaining Chad's former dictator Habre for trial under Pinochet's precedent.

Algeria through the Harkis' case from the Algerian war.

Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Morocco through the Insight News case.

Ivory Coast through the chocolate slavery scandal.

Ghana through the World Bank's Dora slave scandal.

Togo through the Lome peace accords for Sierra Leone, and their breaking as an issue in factional arms supply to there.

Burkina Faso through an arms trade case of smuggling through it from Ukraine to civil war factions in Sierra Leone and Angola.

Niger and Rwanda through Oxfam's case of buying an arms trade "end user certificate" for Rwanda in Niger.

Burundi through the war crimes trial of Rwanda's 1994 head of state.

Tanzania and Japan through the 2000 G8 summit, because Tanzania Social and Economic Trust broadcast a contradiction in implementing both its wishes for economic advance and its debt relief terms.

Mozambique through its cashew nuts dispute with the World Bank.

South Africa and Lesotho through a WHO case against American pharmaceutical ethics there.

Nigeria through reported Nigerian drug mafia crime in South Africa.

Dahomey and Gabon through their slave trafficking scandals overlapping Nigeria and Togo.

Zimbabwe through its land finances dispute with Britain.

Equatorial Guinea through the charges in Zimbabwe of a coup conspiracy.

Malawi through its arrests of Zimbabwean refugees callously deported from Britain.

Zambia through Cafod's collection of objections to food supply and health violations in its IMF structural adjustment program.

Namibia through the Herero genocide case against Germany.

Angola, Congo Kinshasa, Ecuador through arms trade smuggling to them from Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Congo Brazzaville through the Jean-Francois Ndenge case in France.

Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.

Madagascar, Mauretania, Nicaragua through the complaint by Jubilee USA and Africa Action that the IMF is breaking the agreed debt relief terms for them.

Ethiopia through the same, as well as earlier aid sector comment on its conditional debt relief.

Eritrea through its border dispute with Ethiopia.

Somaliland through its problem with Russian and South Korean coastal fishing.

Kenya through the Archer's Post munitions explosion case overlapping Britain.

Somalia through the UNHCR coordinator in Kenya protesting and exposing refugee deportations back to Somalia during the 2006-7 crisis there.

Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan's agreement to return children.

Mauritius through the Ilois rights judgment on the Chagos clearances.

Yemen through its problem with Spain over the missile shipment.

United Arab Emirates through Mohammed Lodi.

Saudi Arabia through the lawsuit by families of 911 victims.

Qatar through the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Bahrain through the call for American witnesses in Richard Meakin's case.

Kuwait through the terrorism arrests in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq through the weapons inspection dispute before the invasion. NB this does not mean the dispute or invasion were right!

Jordan through its threat of "unspecified measures" in its relations with Israel.

Egypt through its disputes with Tanzania and Kenya over use of Nile water.

Libya, Syria, Iran through the Lockerbie bomb trial.

Turkmenistan through Ukraine's gas pipeline dispute with Russia.

Kazakhstan through the American court action on oil contract corruption at government level there.

Uzbekistan through the ambassadorial exposee on evidence obtained by torture there and used in Western courts.

Kyrgyzia through its anti-terrorist border operations with Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan through Ben Laden.

Pakistan through a dispute between supporters of enslaved women and the British embassy for not helping them escape.

India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia through the World Wildlife Fund's campaign for tiger conservation, conflicting western romanticism with local populations affected by the homicidal absurdity of conserving a human predator.

Nepal through the Gurkhas' lawsuit for equal pay and pensions.

Vietnam through a church publicised refugee dispute overlapping China.

Cambodia through its enactment for a trial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust.

Laos through Peter Tatchell's application to arrest Henry Kissinger.

Thailand through Sandra Gregory.

Burma through the Los Angeles judgment on the Unocal oil pipeline.

Sri Lanka through its call for the Tamil Tigers' banning in Britain.

East Timor through public reaction to the judgment against trying Suharto.

Papua New Guinea through WWF's Kikori mangrove logging affair.

New Zealand through its ban on British blood donations.

Nauru through the Australian civil liberty challenge on the Tampa refugees.

Fiji through its land crisis's nonracial solubility by a Commonwealth constitutional question against rent and mortgages.

Tuvalu through environmentalist challenges to America's rejection of international agreements on global warming and sea level.

Marshall Islands through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal cases.

Philippines and Malaysia through the international police investigation in the Jaybe Ofrasio trial in Northern Ireland.

South Korea through its jurisdiction dispute with the American army.

North Korea through its apology to Japan for abductions.