atticus wrote:Removed text attempting to spread material identifying person subject of scurrilous defamation.
Most of the times atticus always ask for real evidence. I received evidence suggesting of judicial corruption at the Court of Appeal where the Court Officer(s) colluded with a second Lord Justice to alter a first Lord Justice decision as to the constitution of the Court of Appeal to hear the Applicant's case.
dls suggested the JCIO route without his knowledge that the JCIO claims to have no power to investigate misconduct whenever a Lord Justice influences the decision of another Lord Justice as the JCIO would always construe it to be judicial decision or case management decision which only an appeal court would be able to resolve. That appeal route, which ought to be to the Supreme Court, in that reported case was frustrated so that the alleged judicial corruption is covered.
I was later provided the link to the Ombudsman's decision which atticus suggested should be the next route to follow after JCIO. I provided the link to the Ombudsman's decision and report having satisfied myself that it does not breach the DPA and if it does breach the DPA that the processing is allowed since it relates to Lord Justices and those occupying high public offices.
atticus has now equated knowledge of only registered forumers here to such evidence (which he had seen and made no comments of such at the time) to scurrilous defamation.
I would welcome understanding on this issue.