An end to confused judges and their questionable decisions

[pop_gun]

I lost a case last year in which the Judge was bias. In my mind I gave the Judge the benefit of the doubt as the claim was complex in nature. However when the Judge struck out a second claim brought against the second Defendant in the main claim, in which the second Defendant had acknowledged service but hadn't provide a defence or appeared in court. The second defendant had admitted owing some of the money claimed, yet the claim was still struck out. The Judge didn't allow me to speak to present my arguments in the second claim.

 

My current claim against Natwest is so clear cut it doesn't need to be heard. Though this didn't stop the Judge ** EDIT** from striking the claim out. Not happy with striking the claim out the Judge was only too happy to invent a clause for the Defendant and then rule on that.

 

I'm not alone in feeling the Judiciary is bias at best or corrupt at worst. There are plenty of stories in the media.

 

 

If you have a story whether personal or otherwise of judicial corrupt please post it here.

Edited October 2, 2012 by citizenB
Removed Judge's name

[pop_gun]

Here's another story about the Judicial selection process. Even Judges think the way in which they were appointed was corrupt.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/legal-selection-system-is-corrupt-admit-judges-706668.html

 

An all too familiar experience for some of us.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ims21

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

1. That item is 12 years old.

2. It was in the independant.

 

Much has changed, Judges particularly in the Civil Courts of England and Wales are working in an ever evolving very complex world, case law, regulation, guidance, balance of possibilities, it is hard to understand these complexities, consider and decide if a piece of law can be fairly or reasonably applied to any particular set of circumstances and make ''a reasoned'' judgement.

 

Many people see their ''particular'' set of circumstances'' as the same thing that happened to the other

person with this bank or that credt card etc the judges skill and learning is to know those differences

and to make his/her judgement in all honesty and with the opinion that it IS unbiased and reasonable.

 

99.9% of the courses taken by judges in the lower courts are clear ansd reasonable.

 

One or two aberrations in judgements of many thousands does NOT make the fairest Civil Court Sytem in the world corrupt.

 

Difficult for any one to understand unless one has experience of this.

[pop_gun]

1. That item is 12 years old.

2. It was in the independant.

 

Much has changed, Judges particularly in the Civil Courts of England and Wales are working in an ever evolving very complex world, case law, regulation, guidance, balance of possibilities, it is hard to understand these complexities, consider and decide if a piece of law can be fairly or reasonably applied to any particular set of circumstances and make ''a reasoned'' judgement.

 

Many people see their ''particular'' set of circumstances'' as the same thing that happened to the other

person with this bank or that credt card etc the judges skill and learning is to know those differences

and to make his/her judgement in all honesty and with the opinion that it IS unbiased and reasonable.

 

99.9% of the courses taken by judges in the lower courts are clear ansd reasonable.

 

One or two aberrations in judgements of many thousands does NOT make the fairest Civil Court Sytem in the world corrupt.

 

Difficult for any one to understand unless one has experience of this.

 

What about the other links I provided. The story of the Coulters is very damning. What's worse is they aren't alone. There's another forum member who has suffered at the hands of the same District Judge. When i can be asked I will provide the link.

 

I see the thread title has been changed. I wonder why that is?

[MARTIN3030]

I see the thread title has been changed. I wonder why that is?

 

Because it was thought to be inappropriate.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not changed by me!

[pop_gun]

I see the thread title has been changed. I wonder why that is?

 

Because it was thought to be inappropriate.

 

How can the truth be inappropriate?

[ims21]

Do not reinstate links that have been removed by admin please

[Carole111]

A Consumer Action Group that doesn't want the public to know how the courts are 'legally' robbing them???!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would suggest that if you have issues with the conduct of the civil courts of England and Wales they would be best addressed to those who may influence them!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A Consumer Action Group that doesn't want the public to know how the courts are 'legally' robbing them???!!!

 

In your humble opinion!

[Carole111]

Like the influence of the people, you mean? Yes they are most certainly the ONLY ones who can influence/change these questionable systems. That is what I was doing, Brig. The people are who I was addressing it to. They should know, don't you think?

 

How can a video of what went on in a real court case be taken off this thread? Twice?

 

The credibility of this board has now just nosedived for me ...

[MARTIN3030]

Firstly,the site rules are clear on posting external links,permission should be sought for these beforehand.

Do you think it is appropriate to be hosting links on a family forum,which open to reveal images of Swastikas ?

CAG does not agree with the views or statements from FOTL either,we expect content and opinions to be posted in reflection of what is established as being actual statute law.We have a responsibility to all members in ensuring that posts and statements on the site remain factual.

It would have been far more productive,to have been looking at why the Courts took the decisions that they did in the cases referenced at the start of the thread.

There will be no further comment by the site team,and if theses links continue to be posted,then the thread will have to be closed,and may see some account moderation.

[Carole111]

Final word then. I don't recall any swastikas. I was too busy wondering what the courts were up to.

 

You're coming over as somewhat authoritarian here MARTIN3030.

 

CAG only deals with 'legal' remedies. Which haven't worked for the people since the year dot.

 

K. Got it.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Is it not illegal to film/record when a court is in session?

[Carole111]

It may well be 'illegal' but it's not unlawful.

 

Under Common Law we have common/natural/queen/god given rights to do whatever we wish.

 

As long as we don't cause loss or injury to anyone.

 

No financial loss or personal injury was caused by filming the events in court.

 

Contract Law covers commerce.

 

Agreements made with trading companies, like banks. Courts, Police Stations, Councils are all trading companies.

They are there to make profits.

 

Our g/ment deals in Statutes.

They use terms like 'regulations', 'rules' and 'legislation'. They can't call it 'Law'. Because it isn't.

 

It's not binding in any way until we consent and contract into the deal that they are offering.

 

Like Council Tax.

 

A court summons is an invitation to go to their place of business to give them your money.

 

You would have to use their 'legal' speak to do so but you can say 'NO'.

 

Both systems exist side by side but people have not been educated in the original Common Law.

 

This was not in their business interests to do so, you see.

 

Consumers should be given all the options.

 

I wish you hadn't come back Brig. I couldn't resist responding. I'll prob get thrown off now. Hey ho ...

[pop_gun]

Is it not illegal to film/record when a court is in session?

 

Shouldn't the court system be open to the public?

 

What better way than recording the proceedings? That way everyone sees Justice or Injustice being done.

Edited October 3, 2012 by pop_gun

[dx100uk]

:loco:

 

dx

[Sillywizard]

Shouldn't the court system be open to the public?

 

What better way than recording the proceedings? That way everyone sees Justice or Injustice being done.

 

I think there are some arguments either way in terms of filming trials and the ones against them can't be lightly overlooked. Filming a rape trial, for example, compels the legal system to either remove the accusers right to anonymity or further stigmatise the reputation of a defendant later found to be innocent. Cameras in a court could intimidate juries and witnesses and would, if widely available, jeopardise the right of someone to a fair trial at any point in the future. We should, as members of the public, be aware of the decisions of courts and the reasons which lead to them but in a criminal trial wide publication puts paid to any notion of the innocent until proven guilty presumption which is its cornerstone.

 

That's not why I responded to the thread, though. While there are always going to be judges with questionable reasoning (James Pickles created a few headlines, may he rest in peace) I loved reading the careful and measured decisions of judges when I was studying and I think it's a bit harsh to dismiss judicial process on the basis that some judges are less able than others.

 

When I saw this post, I immediately remembered Lord Denning in whose defence I was automatically motivated to respond but then I remembered Lord Wedderburn and was saddened to note that he died this year. Lord Wedderburn spent his working life dedicated to the knowledge that one man will never be equal to the power of his employer and was instrumental in ensuring, so far as he was able, that union and employment law reflected the imbalance.

 

For anyone interested, the Wiki entry for Denning has some excellent extracts from his judgements in his 'storytelling' style - for what it's worth, he'd probably have agreed with the original poster's argument that cameras should be allowed in court. And his opinion is worth WAY more than mine..

 

Lastly, it's incorrect to say that we have a right to do as we wish as long as we don't cause loss or injury - selling drugs, carrying a knife or a gun, working as an underage prostitute, driving while drunk and walking naked down the street don't cause direct injury or loss to anyone as far as I can see but I'm glad that they are all illegal activities.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A very reasoned and sensible reponse to some rather deranged thoughts expressed here.

I would support the filming ot ''trials'' in higher courts but it most be done under close supervision and by an authorised ''company'' allowing the public to disrupt any court process by covertly filming proceedings must never be allowed and must be treated as contempt and punished suitably

 

If an action/reaction is illegal there is no justification for deliberately breaking the law of the land!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Shouldn't the court system be open to the public?

 

What better way than recording the proceedings? That way everyone sees Justice or Injustice being done.

 

Proceedings are recorded, but any access by means of photography or video etc should be allowed to the general public ever!

[pop_gun]

I think there are some arguments either way in terms of filming trials and the ones against them can't be lightly overlooked. Filming a rape trial, for example, compels the legal system to either remove the accusers right to anonymity or further stigmatise the reputation of a defendant later found to be innocent. Cameras in a court could intimidate juries and witnesses and would, if widely available, jeopardise the right of someone to a fair trial at any point in the future. We should, as members of the public, be aware of the decisions of courts and the reasons which lead to them

It lacks credibility to suggest a hearing shouldn't be filmed due to the sensitivity of another hearing. Legislation could be drafted to ensure only certain hearings were digitally recorded. To my mind it's a false dictum which allows the courts to do as they please without fear of repercussion.

 

The decisions of the lower courts are not scrutinized. Who other than the interested parties will ever bear witness to the proceedings?

 

The impression you give is that these judges try their best and sometimes get it wrong. Though I suspect you'll say that's the prices we pay for a free and fair judicial system?

 

When nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited October 10, 2012 by pop_gun

[Sillywizard]

Thank you both for responding - while I'm on CAG primarily to become better informed on consumer issues, it's pleasant to exchange points of view as well.

 

I don't insist on the points I made although I think that any discussion on the subject should be aware of wider implications but the reference to Denning was a nod to allowing recording. He was passionate about the accountability of judges and the right of the press to monitor proceedings;

 

"in the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong. If things are really done in public you can see that the judge does behave himself, the newspapers can comment on it if he misbehaves — it keeps everyone in order".

 

Your suspicion is entirely correct - although I recognise that the judiciary is composed largely of ex public school and Oxbridge graduates, it's a lamentable fact that there is no profession where this isn't the case at senior levels and the legal system is doing more than medicine, banking or journalism to at least partially address the societal imbalance. In that sense, then, it isn't 'fair'. Similarly, I'd have to be highly optimistic to assume that the dilution of the powers of the Lord Chancellor removed political patronage from the judicial system but I'd argue that it's a large step in the right direction. So not exactly 'free' either.

 

But this is, as far as I can see, as good as it gets. It's not perfect, but nothing ever is.

[pop_gun]

Today the Lambeth county court refused to accept documents to a circuit judge and a listing manager.

Why? I hear you ask.

Because they are trying out a pilot scheme where only urgent matters are dealt with. I asked for the

documents to be stamped so as to verify the court had witness them. I was refused again.

I was told to post the documents in a letterbox by the judge's entrance.

Considering the Lambeth court has lost 4 documents I had sent it, it doesn't bode well for the

documents I posted.

 

The court can lose documents without the claimant\defendant being able to prove it was ever sent.

 

The difference between the courts in england and those in afganistan, pakistan, zimbabwe etc is that

the lie of the rule of law is still believed here.

 

You are optimistic because from on high the judiciary does seem like a noble bunch. It's only when

you're in the trenches that you see what everything is made of.

[pop_gun]

I shouldn't get into trouble for posting this link since it's from a 'reputable' newspaper and the facts

are public knowledge.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254134/Tanned-relaxed-earning-big-bucks--judge-far-stressed-face-trial.html#comments

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1362611/Judge-and-solicitor-held-in-corruption-inquiry.html

 

How about 2 miscreants?

 

How about 3 with Judge Richard Green who was found guilty at Lewes Crown Court of swindling the elderly out of £85,000 while he was a solicitor.

Edited October 12, 2012 by pop_gun