Removal of Judge from the Bench via Houses of Parliament

I read in a law book that it is possible to remove a judge from the Bench via the Houses of Parliament if

a) ill

b) unsound mind

c) inability to reason

but I cannot remember which book.

 

This would be useful to know in relation to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where a judge has deliberately abused civil right to a fair hearing where it is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.

Why is this idea important?

I read in a law book that it is possible to remove a judge from the Bench via the Houses of Parliament if

a) ill

b) unsound mind

c) inability to reason

but I cannot remember which book.

 

This would be useful to know in relation to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where a judge has deliberately abused civil right to a fair hearing where it is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.

Benevolent Trusts – charity

There is a book on benevolent and trusts funds where people can ask for assistance re funding ie school clothes from the police etc.

People have left money down the centuries but some of trusts are now very obscure or only have a very small fund.

Some of these could usefully be wound up or lumped together into one trust fund.

Why is this idea important?

There is a book on benevolent and trusts funds where people can ask for assistance re funding ie school clothes from the police etc.

People have left money down the centuries but some of trusts are now very obscure or only have a very small fund.

Some of these could usefully be wound up or lumped together into one trust fund.

Where Councils are recycling, return profits via community charge

Where Councils are recycling, return profits via community charge (chip in bin for example).  One Council is giving homeowners who recycle vouchers for local stores.

Float Councils recycling plants on the stock exchange

Why is this idea important?

Where Councils are recycling, return profits via community charge (chip in bin for example).  One Council is giving homeowners who recycle vouchers for local stores.

Float Councils recycling plants on the stock exchange

Datasharing

Under New Labour the laws on data protection were changed so that you had to give a reason why your data could not be shared, otherwise it was automatically shared.  Change this back so that privacy is sacrasanct

Why is this idea important?

Under New Labour the laws on data protection were changed so that you had to give a reason why your data could not be shared, otherwise it was automatically shared.  Change this back so that privacy is sacrasanct

Child labour law and shipping law

Use statute law to prevent child labor being used in the manufacturing process by preventing goods being sold in the EU which involves child labour in any part of the manufacturing process.

Use shipping law to establish the pathway of goods from raw material to product to retail outlet to establish the journey of goods which may involve child labour.

Regulate the multi-national layer of corporations who can use parent/subsidiary to hide their real practises of using child labour in manufacturing process.

Human rights regulation of multi-nationals

Why is this idea important?

Use statute law to prevent child labor being used in the manufacturing process by preventing goods being sold in the EU which involves child labour in any part of the manufacturing process.

Use shipping law to establish the pathway of goods from raw material to product to retail outlet to establish the journey of goods which may involve child labour.

Regulate the multi-national layer of corporations who can use parent/subsidiary to hide their real practises of using child labour in manufacturing process.

Human rights regulation of multi-nationals

Gary MacKinnon case – hacking

Take hacking laws up to the international layer of law

What bit of computer equipment enables a person to hack – software and hardware

Computers are made up of parts from different legal jurisdictions

Gary Mackinnon had to go through a British based computer prior to hacking an American computer – therefore the jurisdiction is multiple along with the equipment

The computer misuse act therefore prima facie applies in the UK, prior to any other jurisdictions rights.  If he can be convicted here, then he should not be able to be extradited to any other jurisdiction.

To solve this issue making a hacking a domestic computer misuse or an international law would resolve America's dilema.

Why is this idea important?

Take hacking laws up to the international layer of law

What bit of computer equipment enables a person to hack – software and hardware

Computers are made up of parts from different legal jurisdictions

Gary Mackinnon had to go through a British based computer prior to hacking an American computer – therefore the jurisdiction is multiple along with the equipment

The computer misuse act therefore prima facie applies in the UK, prior to any other jurisdictions rights.  If he can be convicted here, then he should not be able to be extradited to any other jurisdiction.

To solve this issue making a hacking a domestic computer misuse or an international law would resolve America's dilema.

Abolish any procedural rule of court that does not speedily move a case to trial

Abolish any procedural rule of court that does not speedily move a case to trial – especially stay of proceedings which are longer than three months

which require a case to go off on tangents which cause appeals of procedural rules

Make the legal system faster by bringing back equality (traditional), fairness, impartiality and justice over proportion, economy, expedition and contemporary justice (ADR)

Monitor and evaluation of judges by the parties completing forms to say how the judge has done by way of feedback – published stat data : necessary to show that the cases are progressing through the courts.  With virtual scheduling in court it is possible to show how many cases per year, their type, where they are at in process, how many are settled at door of court and at what stage – the press could have a field day.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish any procedural rule of court that does not speedily move a case to trial – especially stay of proceedings which are longer than three months

which require a case to go off on tangents which cause appeals of procedural rules

Make the legal system faster by bringing back equality (traditional), fairness, impartiality and justice over proportion, economy, expedition and contemporary justice (ADR)

Monitor and evaluation of judges by the parties completing forms to say how the judge has done by way of feedback – published stat data : necessary to show that the cases are progressing through the courts.  With virtual scheduling in court it is possible to show how many cases per year, their type, where they are at in process, how many are settled at door of court and at what stage – the press could have a field day.

Volunteer Rights

The only volunteer rights are contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 s3 ie you must not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (to include volunteers).

mutual trust and confidence is not enough

Why is this idea important?

The only volunteer rights are contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 s3 ie you must not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (to include volunteers).

mutual trust and confidence is not enough

Equal Opportunities Monitoring by public bodies

Removing regulations that require job applicants to apply by "application pack" instead of CV

Creating regulation that requires all equal opportunities monitoring to be regulated so that each job applicant is notified of statistical data concerning the post advertised.

Why is this idea important?

Removing regulations that require job applicants to apply by "application pack" instead of CV

Creating regulation that requires all equal opportunities monitoring to be regulated so that each job applicant is notified of statistical data concerning the post advertised.

Looking at the laws that criminalised Malcolm Kendell-Smith for being a conscience objector in the Iraq War

In hingsight concerning the Iraq War

1) Looking at the laws that criminalised Malcolm Kendell-Smith for being a conscience objector in the Iraq War

2) Looking at the laws around soldiers in armed conflict with insufficient equipment and their rights

3) Tony Blair – the Hague what laws are applicable given we know we entered an unjust war

Why is this idea important?

In hingsight concerning the Iraq War

1) Looking at the laws that criminalised Malcolm Kendell-Smith for being a conscience objector in the Iraq War

2) Looking at the laws around soldiers in armed conflict with insufficient equipment and their rights

3) Tony Blair – the Hague what laws are applicable given we know we entered an unjust war

MPs Expenses Scandal

MPS recent expenses scandal under New Labour should have been dealt with as the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

There should have been a complete suspension of all MP's involved and either the second place candidates at the general election requested to step forward or new constituency elections. 

There should have been a hung parliament at the juncture when a list of all MPs involved became known.

Why is this idea important?

MPS recent expenses scandal under New Labour should have been dealt with as the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

There should have been a complete suspension of all MP's involved and either the second place candidates at the general election requested to step forward or new constituency elections. 

There should have been a hung parliament at the juncture when a list of all MPs involved became known.

Anomaly in Student loans used to pay housing benefit (scotland)

The welfare reforms expected the core jobless to go back to work or take up education and training.  There is an anomaly with student loans in Scotland whereby housing benefit must be paid out of the student loan.

Unfortunately, the SAAS and student services do not inform about the anomaly even on the SAAS website and a person may only apply for student fee exemption without realising that they must also take out a student loan to pay their rent as housing benefit no longer applies.

Housing Benefit Regulation s.64 (3)  (b).

'A student shall be treated as possessing a student loan in respect of an academic year where (a) a student loan has been made to him in respect of that year or (b) he could acquire such a loan in respect of that year by taking reasonable steps to do so."

This anomaly causes an overpayment of housing benefit with subsequent claw back which places the student in arrears of rent.  If in arrears a landlord can use this as a reason to evict, the student then becomes homeless.

However, it is possible to get a discretionary payment from the Council to pay the arrears but this does not garantee that a valid notice to quit if served timeously will not still mean a student is homeless.

Why is this idea important?

The welfare reforms expected the core jobless to go back to work or take up education and training.  There is an anomaly with student loans in Scotland whereby housing benefit must be paid out of the student loan.

Unfortunately, the SAAS and student services do not inform about the anomaly even on the SAAS website and a person may only apply for student fee exemption without realising that they must also take out a student loan to pay their rent as housing benefit no longer applies.

Housing Benefit Regulation s.64 (3)  (b).

'A student shall be treated as possessing a student loan in respect of an academic year where (a) a student loan has been made to him in respect of that year or (b) he could acquire such a loan in respect of that year by taking reasonable steps to do so."

This anomaly causes an overpayment of housing benefit with subsequent claw back which places the student in arrears of rent.  If in arrears a landlord can use this as a reason to evict, the student then becomes homeless.

However, it is possible to get a discretionary payment from the Council to pay the arrears but this does not garantee that a valid notice to quit if served timeously will not still mean a student is homeless.

Repeal the Access to Justice Act 1999 and anything to do with ADR

The Access to Justice Act 1999 is fraudulent.  It does not do "Access TO Justice", it does "Access FROM Justice" because it enabled "within" the judiciary and legal profession the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).  This concept actually undermines the rule of law.

All lawyers, barristers and judges should only be concerned with the "application of the rule of law".  Our laws are what keep us safe.

ADR is about compromise – gold will be left on the table and is a Japanese concept which "saves loss of face".

Unfortunately the concept in the England & Wales via the Woolf Reforms, and in Scotland and Europe is modified to a Jewish promulgation of the concept which is premised as "cheaper and quicker" – not necessarily so.

ADR should NOT be contained within the legal profession and judiciary.  It should be contained outside the legal system and law and regulated by its own Statute.

Undermining the rule of law by an alien concept is an INVASION – it knocked over the judiciary, the press failed to report accurately, we ended up in Iraq and the then financial sector went down – 4 pillars.  With ADR you do not get democracy, it is not "modern", or "contempory" it is "Alternative" to Justice.  Litigation (public) and Arbitration (private) apply the rule of law – ADR compromises the rule of law in the private domain.  ADR always removes the dispute from the rule of law – it is never therefore within the legal profession nor judicial system.  That is because the concept is "opposite" and polarised.  No matter how much you say it is within the legal profession and judicial system it remains outside it.  Playing with words and promoting this concept is Access to Justice where "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" is to create a hidden society by gagging using confidentiality clauses and to reward breach of contract.  As English law is based on the common law of contract, undermining law should not be dressed up as something it is not and never can be – Justice.  It is compromise.   The difference is A judge decides in litigation and arbitration, a party decides in ADR.  REMOVE ADR from within the judiciary and legal profession and encase it in its own regulatory statute because the mediator is always neutral and psychological techniques are used to subvert an adversarial approach.  Quicker and cheaper may mean you have no rights at all.

ry

Why is this idea important?

The Access to Justice Act 1999 is fraudulent.  It does not do "Access TO Justice", it does "Access FROM Justice" because it enabled "within" the judiciary and legal profession the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).  This concept actually undermines the rule of law.

All lawyers, barristers and judges should only be concerned with the "application of the rule of law".  Our laws are what keep us safe.

ADR is about compromise – gold will be left on the table and is a Japanese concept which "saves loss of face".

Unfortunately the concept in the England & Wales via the Woolf Reforms, and in Scotland and Europe is modified to a Jewish promulgation of the concept which is premised as "cheaper and quicker" – not necessarily so.

ADR should NOT be contained within the legal profession and judiciary.  It should be contained outside the legal system and law and regulated by its own Statute.

Undermining the rule of law by an alien concept is an INVASION – it knocked over the judiciary, the press failed to report accurately, we ended up in Iraq and the then financial sector went down – 4 pillars.  With ADR you do not get democracy, it is not "modern", or "contempory" it is "Alternative" to Justice.  Litigation (public) and Arbitration (private) apply the rule of law – ADR compromises the rule of law in the private domain.  ADR always removes the dispute from the rule of law – it is never therefore within the legal profession nor judicial system.  That is because the concept is "opposite" and polarised.  No matter how much you say it is within the legal profession and judicial system it remains outside it.  Playing with words and promoting this concept is Access to Justice where "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" is to create a hidden society by gagging using confidentiality clauses and to reward breach of contract.  As English law is based on the common law of contract, undermining law should not be dressed up as something it is not and never can be – Justice.  It is compromise.   The difference is A judge decides in litigation and arbitration, a party decides in ADR.  REMOVE ADR from within the judiciary and legal profession and encase it in its own regulatory statute because the mediator is always neutral and psychological techniques are used to subvert an adversarial approach.  Quicker and cheaper may mean you have no rights at all.

ry

The Lord Chancellor should be a Judge doing law from the Woolsac not the despatch box

The Lord Chancellor should be a Judge with Executive powers in the Cabinet.  It should not be the case that the Lord Chancellor is a politician with Executive Powers in the Judiciary.

Laws should be made from the Woolsac, not the despatch box (as the Access to Justice Act 1999 was enacted).

Why is this idea important?

The Lord Chancellor should be a Judge with Executive powers in the Cabinet.  It should not be the case that the Lord Chancellor is a politician with Executive Powers in the Judiciary.

Laws should be made from the Woolsac, not the despatch box (as the Access to Justice Act 1999 was enacted).

Codification of Banking laws

There are three ways to clear a cheque with laws going back to the 18th Century.  There is a need for a complete codification exercise of case precedent and statute law in "banking", "finance", "investment", "corporate" and "taxation" for the law to be brought up to the 21st century.  

Why is this idea important?

There are three ways to clear a cheque with laws going back to the 18th Century.  There is a need for a complete codification exercise of case precedent and statute law in "banking", "finance", "investment", "corporate" and "taxation" for the law to be brought up to the 21st century.  

Repeal the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in Scotland

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a cause for concern in England & Wales and a Master of the Royal Courts has asked me to be a "protected party" under the Act when NOT A PATIENT as CTO was revoked.  The case has been stayed for 4 years causing a civil liberty issue.

It is not for a judge to decide capacity of a patient to plead in a civil or criminal case – ALL people are subject to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and therefore NO PERSON should be denied justice even on a capacity issue.   ALL people can communicate to some degree – some are slower than others and with the Disability Discrimination Act a person should not be discriminated against by a judge pulling a fast one on the ticket of capacity.

If Stephen Hawkins can manage to communicate to any degree so also should anyone who has a mental health capacity.  There is little or no need for this Act save where someone needs some to represent for them and that is not an issue of capacity.

Judges should have patients and with technology it is possible to get information in other formats such as large print, braile, languages and technology should be extended to using email and virtual methods – we are in the 21st century, judges should start behaving as if they are too.

The mental capacity act is abusing human rights of freedom of expression.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a cause for concern in England & Wales and a Master of the Royal Courts has asked me to be a "protected party" under the Act when NOT A PATIENT as CTO was revoked.  The case has been stayed for 4 years causing a civil liberty issue.

It is not for a judge to decide capacity of a patient to plead in a civil or criminal case – ALL people are subject to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and therefore NO PERSON should be denied justice even on a capacity issue.   ALL people can communicate to some degree – some are slower than others and with the Disability Discrimination Act a person should not be discriminated against by a judge pulling a fast one on the ticket of capacity.

If Stephen Hawkins can manage to communicate to any degree so also should anyone who has a mental health capacity.  There is little or no need for this Act save where someone needs some to represent for them and that is not an issue of capacity.

Judges should have patients and with technology it is possible to get information in other formats such as large print, braile, languages and technology should be extended to using email and virtual methods – we are in the 21st century, judges should start behaving as if they are too.

The mental capacity act is abusing human rights of freedom of expression.

 

Warrant to section someone under Mental Health Legislation should be subject to human rights

Under current mental health legislation a warrant is issued by a justice of the peace, sheriff or judge without a person being party to or present when the document is signed.  The system thereby deprives a person of liberty for 72 hours or one month and is subject to APPEAL.  Currently the system is abused and people who may not have a mental instability or who may not have a severe mental disability are deprived of their liberty contrary to Human Rights legislation, deprived of their ability to speak freely before a judge/jp/sheriff and who may also have an invasion of their privacy by police putting in their front door.  All of this is not monitored or evaluated by human rights legislation and the statutory body regulating mental health is the mental welfare commission NOT human rights commission.  It should be prima facia a human rights issue and people with or without mental health disability should be brought before the JP/Sheriff/Judge or the JP/sheriff/judge should be brought to the person to be detained prior to actual detention.  Moreover, the police should not be able to arrange for a person to be sectioned by writing to an MHO/RMO where a criminal offence is being stated to have been committed – it is not for the police to decide mental health issues it is for the police to investigate and a criminal record number should always be given.  The system is open to abuse and for police officers to fail to do their duty to people who may or may not have mental health disability.

Why is this idea important?

Under current mental health legislation a warrant is issued by a justice of the peace, sheriff or judge without a person being party to or present when the document is signed.  The system thereby deprives a person of liberty for 72 hours or one month and is subject to APPEAL.  Currently the system is abused and people who may not have a mental instability or who may not have a severe mental disability are deprived of their liberty contrary to Human Rights legislation, deprived of their ability to speak freely before a judge/jp/sheriff and who may also have an invasion of their privacy by police putting in their front door.  All of this is not monitored or evaluated by human rights legislation and the statutory body regulating mental health is the mental welfare commission NOT human rights commission.  It should be prima facia a human rights issue and people with or without mental health disability should be brought before the JP/Sheriff/Judge or the JP/sheriff/judge should be brought to the person to be detained prior to actual detention.  Moreover, the police should not be able to arrange for a person to be sectioned by writing to an MHO/RMO where a criminal offence is being stated to have been committed – it is not for the police to decide mental health issues it is for the police to investigate and a criminal record number should always be given.  The system is open to abuse and for police officers to fail to do their duty to people who may or may not have mental health disability.

Article 6

Article 6 of the HRA 1998 should be criminalised to perversion of the course of justice as there needs to be procedural nonsense and reality is the judge is implicitly involved in an art 6 issue

It is very very difficult to do a miscarriage of justice as this requires "inadvertence" and or likely a lack of evidence in a case different from an ommittance of evidence in a case.  Therefore a miscarriage of justice should be seen as different from a "deliberate" act by a judge such that there is an article 6 hearing on appeal.

A good indicator of a judge not in control of his courtroom is a request or repeated requests for contempt of court orders in by a party to a case, or a continual or overly long delay in proceedings – the courts have electronic scheduling and the case should be moving in fortnightly or monthly time frame cycles – where it is not, then an appeal is likely and is a good indicator that a "deliberate" injustice is occurring on the case where people are currently signposted to article 6 when the issue is really a perversion of the course of justice.

Why is this idea important?

Article 6 of the HRA 1998 should be criminalised to perversion of the course of justice as there needs to be procedural nonsense and reality is the judge is implicitly involved in an art 6 issue

It is very very difficult to do a miscarriage of justice as this requires "inadvertence" and or likely a lack of evidence in a case different from an ommittance of evidence in a case.  Therefore a miscarriage of justice should be seen as different from a "deliberate" act by a judge such that there is an article 6 hearing on appeal.

A good indicator of a judge not in control of his courtroom is a request or repeated requests for contempt of court orders in by a party to a case, or a continual or overly long delay in proceedings – the courts have electronic scheduling and the case should be moving in fortnightly or monthly time frame cycles – where it is not, then an appeal is likely and is a good indicator that a "deliberate" injustice is occurring on the case where people are currently signposted to article 6 when the issue is really a perversion of the course of justice.