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

Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Stuff about using this board

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby Denning » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:04 pm

atticus wrote:The distinction made is that the decision in question was on taken by the judge acting in a judicial capacity. The JCIO does not investigate judicial decisions.

And to allege corruption, judicial murder etc is barking.

The second Lord Justice was not acting in a judicial capacity because he had no jurisdiction to sit as a single judge of the Court of Appeal. A Lord Justice ought to be an intelligent person who must have access to the decision of the first Lord Justice. So there can be no excuse for him to sit alone. The Court jurisdiction was provided by the first Lord Justice who according to my reading of the papas granted the Applicant's request for the hearing to be heard before the full Court of Appeal.

The second Lord Justice (LJ2) from the papers I have read decided against the Applicant at the hearing that he (LJ2) had no jurisdiction by overruling that he (LJ2) had jurisdiction to sit alone (regardless of what the first Lord Justice had determined) because he (LJ2) understood the case raised by the Applicant as something a single judge can decide upon.

Progressive people in the legal field, including Lord Neuberger, stated that deprivation of justice could lead to risk of murder or actions inimical to the public good of the state.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby atticus » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:08 pm

The first two paragraphs are your opinion. The second mangles the English language. The third is a non-sequitur which does not justify you having made your previous allegation of judicial murder.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18861
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby Denning » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:11 pm

atticus wrote:The first two paragraphs are your opinion. The second mangles the English language. The third is a non-sequitur which does not justify you having made your previous allegation of judicial murder.

The firat two paragraphs were on the basis of Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court case law. The third is from a speech made by Lord Neuberger following the withdrawal of legal aid to various areas. You can do the search and you will find that speech.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby atticus » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:19 pm

I do not question you on what Lord Neuberger said. That does not make it relevant to the discussion or justify your earlier bizarre allegation.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18861
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby Denning » Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:47 am

atticus wrote:I do not question you on what Lord Neuberger said. That does not make it relevant to the discussion or justify your earlier bizarre allegation.

Pleased you never questioned what Lord Neuberger said.

I am an "apostle of true legal justice" for everyone. I detest situations where decisions makers (including senior judges) make decisions on the basis of the individuals rather on the basis of the defining law. The Court of Appeal was initially set up to have plurality of judges to reach a decision for a purpose before judicial politics raised its ugly head.

This individual in context was judiciary raped, allegedly. Hypothetically, I wonder what your reaction would be if your resources, your family and everything dear to you were taken away from you without providing you a proper judicial platform for your case to be properly heard.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby atticus » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:41 am

Denning wrote:I am an "apostle of true legal justice" for everyone.

That's nice.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18861
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby Denning » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:33 pm

'IT IS NOT FOR JUDGES TO BE LEGISLATORS': HOME SECRETARY'S PUBLIC ATTACK ON REBEL JUDGES
Just think for a moment what this judge is claiming. He is asserting that he can ignore the unanimous adoption by the Commons of new immigration rules on the grounds that he thinks this is a ‘weak form of parliamentary scrutiny’.

I find it difficult to see how that can be squared with the central idea of our constitution, which is that Parliament makes the law, and judges interpret what that law is and make sure the executive complies with it.

For almost all of the long history of disputes between judges and Parliament, it has been common ground that Parliament is the ultimate law-maker, and that it is not for the judges to be legislators. It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country – and not the judges.

Yet some judges seem to believe that they can ignore Parliament’s wishes if they think that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny have been ‘weak’. That appears actually to mean that they can ignore Parliament when they think it came to the wrong conclusion.

dls, What the second Lord Justice allegedly did cannot be excused. I believe the judge should have been investigated by the JCIO because the allegation is one of serious misconduct, perjury and judicial fraud.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby dls » Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:49 pm

the allegation is one of serious misconduct, perjury and judicial fraud.


No, it just went against you.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby Denning » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:43 am

dls wrote:
the allegation is one of serious misconduct, perjury and judicial fraud.


No, it just went against you.

You are obviously not being objective because the alleged corruption is directed at one of your judicial acquaintances.

The big issue is what judicial authority (if not corruption or perjury) has a second Lord Justice to alter the judicial decision of an earlier first Lord Justice who had directed hearing before the full Court of Appeal which would have given the litigant a clear right of appeal to the Supreme Court?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:48 am

Ding, please stop being an arse. Your comment about dls is unwarranted, unjustified and inappropriate. If anyone is lacking objectivity, it is you.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18861
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Board Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest