Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Why was the Judicial corruption evidence at the CoA REMOVED?

Stuff about using this board

Why was the Judicial corruption evidence at the CoA REMOVED?

Postby Denning » Sun Nov 15, 2015 10:01 pm

dls, Often times an individual here (who knows himself) doubted the alleged extreme judicial corruption ongoing at the Court of Appeal where majority of the decisions affecting Litigants-in-Person (LiPs) are continually de facto decided by Court Officers. I was initially provided a case and latterly up to the JCIO two stages (without knowledge of the Ombudsman's decision at the time I opened the thread) in which it was alleged that a second Lord Justice colluded with the Court Officer(s) of the Civil Appeals Office to alter an earlier decision of a first Lord Justice that granted an Applicant's application(s) to be heard before a full Court of Appeal of three judges. I reported it under the Constitutional Law forum with the thread entitled - "Can a Lord Justice acting above the law be cured?"

I expected this to be debated because it does not seem right for the Applicant to be frustrated from justice. I have today additionally seen documents from the Metropolitan Police (including annotated comments allegedly made by a named police officer) in which it was stated a court order was required before an investigation can be carried against the alleged conspirators (Court Officers, "second Lord Justice") at the Court of Appeal on alleged perjury or perverting the course of justice reported to the police, otherwise the police position is to classify it as a civil matter.

Whilst this forum belongs to you, you could have removed the "annoying" link to the provided Ombudsman's report rather than for you to remove the thread. The evidence from the Ombudsman's report in my opinion answers your post.

I have provided the last two posts in that thread which I read before your action to remove it.
Denning (on Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:07 pm) wrote:
dls (on Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:14 am) wrote:This entire discussion is empty.

It requires us to take as a starting point a hugely confidential document of unspecified value and content to then discuss an unpecified corruption.

The discussion tries to give weight to a balloon filled with hot air.


dls, I do not think you need to aspire to become a partner anymore in a firm of solicitors or to become a judge so as to try to disregard extreme judicial corruption with its attendant risks to a host of other evils. For evil to flourish is for good people not to say anything about the evil.

Slarti did not just accept "hook, line and sinker" approach of the strike on the thread - Jihadi John. Murdered, executed, or just unlucky?

I have been provided the link to the decision and report of the Ombudsman to the complaint. Click - Ombudsman report to read it and your review. [Hyperlink removed by Denning so as to report what was stated in the REMOVED thread.]

I would appreciate to read Slarti's review on the report and others who would be willing to look at it objectively. We should put in our mindset that the individual in question was following the legal route by himself very likely without the resources to instruct leading counsel.


atticus (on Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:30 pm) wrote:Why didn't you say earlier that you had taken it to the ombudsman?

That report seems clear.

All roads have an end.
Last edited by atticus on Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removed text attempting to spread material identifying person subject of scurrilous defamation. (2nd edit to clarify this statement).
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why was the Judicial corruption evidence at the CoA REMO

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:56 am

User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19840
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W


Return to Board Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron