This is from the Wikipedia's series on Law and has a virtue, it is to the point. Lawyers would say it is not authoritative. It will do nicely because they have not managed to spoil it with obscurantist drivel. Start with Criminal law, especially English criminal law and work down to the point of interest.
The Crown Prosecution Service takes a position on some law at CPS Legal Guidance. Treason got a pass. See under for something on Enforcement
You can report crime to the police using this link. This is to prevent them ignoring it. You can then publicize their collusion with criminals such as Members of Parliament.
England has its common law rather than local laws. Other countries followed suit. They were once part of the Empire.
Criminal Justice System Reform
The crime industry pays off very handsomely for the people paid to prevent it and the lawyers who deal with what is laughingly call justice. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance puts a position based on sound common sense, a rare virtue in this area.
Police, Law And You
The police are your enemy. It is a simple point and important to understand. Procedural safeguards against them have been weakened by that corrupt little swine, Blair. Robert Henderson's guide to what you should say is important. There is a lot not to say as well.
Police Conduct Regulations
Tell us what they are not allowed to do. You might conclude from this that they are not allowed to take bribes from News Of The World or anyone else. The reality is not the same as the theory.
Criminal law Part of the Wikipedia's common law series:
Element (criminal law)
Is what puts criminals in prison and keeps honest men out. That is the hope but not always the reality. There are important things to know when you are accused.
Scope of criminal liability:
Inchoate offenses Attempt Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person:
False arrest is a tort
False imprisonment - felony and tort
ABH - Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
GBH - Grievous Bodily Harm
Death by Dangerous Driving - Sentencing Guidelines
In English criminal law, incitement was an anticipatory common law offence and was the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.
It was abolished on 1 October 2008 when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime. The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date.
The word is still useful. Notice that the Wiki gives both of the three new offences.
Soliciting To Murder
This offence is created by section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which reads:
. . . whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to [imprisonment for life] .
Soliciting to murder is bad grammar but that is Parliament for you. Incitement it was, incitement it remains.
Sentencing In Murder Cases
NB It seems that some murders are more serious than others.
Where the offender is 21 or over at the time of the offence and the court takes the view that the murder is so grave that the offender should spend the rest of his life in prison, a 'whole life order' is the appropriate starting point. The early release provisions in section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will then not apply. Such an order should only be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high. Such cases include:
a) the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim, or sexual or sadistic conduct;
b) the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation;
c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or
d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.
This one carries life imprisonment. Perhaps we should be grateful that it is not hanging, drawing and quartering. One comedian got ten years for his pains. It is one of these catch all crimes. It covers anything they couldn't think of at the time but want to do someone for.
Racist and religious crime – CPS prosecution policy
Is based on hate and:-
Racially or religiously aggravated offences - Crime and Disorder Act 1998(amended by Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)
Incitement to racial hatred - sections 17-29 Public Order Act 1986
Incitement to religious hatred - sections 29B-29G Public Order Act 1986
Football Offences - s.3 Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by s.9 Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999)
Crimes against property:
Conspiracy to Defraud
Receiving stolen property
Theft - see Theft Act 1968
At law, cheating is a specific criminal offence relating to property....... In most cases the codified statutory form of cheating and the original common law offence are very similar, however there can be differences. For example, under English law it was held in R. v. Sinclair  3 All 241 at 246 that "[t]o cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the prejudice of another person's proprietary right." However at common law a great deal of authority suggested that there had to be contrivance, such that the public were likely to be deceived and that "common prudence and caution are not sufficient security against a person being defrauded thereby". Examples of cheating upheld by the courts have included fraudulently pretending to have power to discharge a soldier, using false weights or measures, and playing with false dice.
It may not have been held to include defrauding the tax payer by using false accounting especially with Private Finance Initiatives.
Bribery Act 2010
The Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers the criminal law relating to bribery. Introduced to Parliament in the Queen's Speech in 2009 after several decades of reports and draft bills, the Act received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 following cross-party support. Initially scheduled to enter into force in April 2010, this was changed to 1 July 2011. The Act repeals all previous statutory and common law provisions in relation to bribery, instead replacing them with the crimes of bribery, being bribed, the bribery of foreign public officials, and the failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery on its behalf.
The penalties for committing a crime under the Act are a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, along with an unlimited fine, and the potential for the confiscation of property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as well as the disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Act has a near-universal jurisdiction, allowing for the prosecution of an individual or company with links to the United Kingdom, regardless of where the crime occurred. Described as "the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world", concerns have been raised that the Act's provisions criminalise behaviour that is acceptable in the global market, and puts British business at a competitive disadvantage. Private Eye does not believe it. They know a thing or two about City crime. But see The Ethics of Bribery - Murray N. Rothbard
Bribery Act Guidance
The CPS says companies will have to prove they are not guilty rather than vice versa.
Conspiracy to Defraud
Is a Common Law crime.
Is a splendid principle but not a matter of criminal law. Thus it sidesteps the nausea of proving criminal intent, beyond all reasonable doubt. Making the direct connection between the loot and the lack of value is the way to go. It is strangely unpopular in legal goings on. It is related to Unconscionability and somewhat to Quantum meruit, the amount merited.
Crimes against justice:
Compounding a felony was an offence under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanour. It consisted of a prosecutor or victim of an offence accepting money or money's worth in exchange for dropping a prosecution for a felony. It has been abolished in England It has been replaced by a statutory offence.
See the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c.58), section 5(5)
Contempt of court
Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt," such as a person "held in contempt," it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
In civil cases involving disputes between private citizens, the behaviour resulting in the ruling is often directed at one of the parties involved rather than at the court directly. A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The contemnor's knowledge of the order
The contemnor's ability to comply
The contemnor's failure to comply
A lawful order of a court is rather like a lawful command in the Army. It must not be for personal advantage.
Contempt of Parliament
In many jurisdictions governed by a parliament, Contempt of Parliament is the crime of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions, or of hindering any Member of Parliament in the performance of his or her duties.
Actions which can constitute a contempt of Parliament vary, but typically include such things as:
refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a House or committee; and
attempting to influence a Member of Parliament, for example, by bribery or threats.
In some jurisdictions, a House of Parliament may declare any act to constitute contempt, and this is not subject to judicial review. In others, contempt of Parliament is defined by statute; while Parliament makes the initial decision of whether to punish for contempt, the person or organisation in contempt may appeal to the courts
Expense fraud by MPs is not covered even though various thieves tried it on. They came unstuck on legal aid which was, one assumes granted by abuse of power.
An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.
Law relating to complicity varies. Usually complicity is not a crime although this sometimes conflicts with popular perception. (See The Finale (Seinfeld)). At a certain point a person that is complicit in a crime may become a conspirator depending on the degree of involvement by the individual and whether a crime was completed or not.
Politicians ignoring deliberate breaches of the Constitution are complicit.
False pretences or obtaining property by false pretences is when a person obtains property by intentionally misrepresenting a past or existing fact.
It sounds clear enough. Does it apply to politicians? Let's not be naive.
False imprisonment - felony and tort, justifies Habeas corpus
Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
Applies to Pakistani thugs who are allegedly Brits when they make off to fight for various Third World mobs. The Crown Prosecution Service position comes from their Prosecution Policy And Guidance. It is clear and to the point - pretend that the law does not exist.
Is more a crime against the state than justice.
High Treason: Laws Against Establishing a Foreign Power in England
Heretical does not beat about the bush which is why they put him in prison.
Malfeasance in office
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.............
Under English law malfeasance in public office is also a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that this had 3 essential elements:
The defendant must be a public officer
The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.
The journalist Sally Murrer was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting malfeasance in public office because she had allegedly been receiving information from a police source. The case was thrown out by a judge.
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence say that the elements of the offence are when:
A public officer acting as such.
Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
Without reasonable excuse or justification.
This may cover malicious prosecution. Does it cover malicious non-prosecution? It should.
Misfeasance in Public Office is a tort
Misconduct In Public Office - Legal Guidance Ex Crown Prosecution Service
The elements of misconduct in public office are:
a) A public officer acting as such.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
That covers a lot of ground including idle on parade, conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, torture, murder, treason etc.
Misprision of felony was an offence under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanour. It consisted of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities.............
With the development of the modern law, this crime has been discarded in most jurisdictions, and is generally only applied against persons placed in a special position of authority or responsibility. [ A Lord Chief Justice of England perhaps? - Editor ]....... It has been abolished in England
And there is no equivalent? It is better that way for criminals running a government.
Misprision of Treason
Misprision of treason is an offence found in many common law jurisdictions around the world, having been inherited from English law. It is committed by someone who knows a treason is being or is about to be committed but does not report it to a proper authority. It is therefore unusual in that it is a criminal offence which may be committed through inaction.........
Misprision of treason is an offence under the common law of England and Wales and the common law of Northern Ireland. By statute, the offence of misprision of treason under the common law of England has been made an offence which is cognisable under the law of Scotland. This offence was formerly known as misprision of high treason in order to distinguish it from misprision of petty treason.
The crime is committed where a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report it as soon as he can to a justice of the peace or other authority. The offender does not need to consent to the treason; mere knowledge is enough. Failure to report treason used to itself be treason at common law, but a statute passed by the parliament of 1554-1555 created a new offence of misprision of treason, which was a non-capital felony.
Lots of politicians are committing treason. Lots of people know they are committing treason. Lots of people are colluding in treason.
The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors and attorneys general however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.
This could be used to good effect among the vicious and arrogant.
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case.........
Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law defines perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. In the United Kingdom a potential penalty for perjury is a prison sentence of up to 7 years..........
Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)........... Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime.
Usurping the power of the courts is best done from the inside which is the point of Entryism and The Long March Through The Institutions
Perverting The Course Of Justice
Perverting the course of justice, in English, Canadian (see article 139 of Canadian Criminal Code), and Irish law, is a criminal offence in which someone prevents justice from being served on himself or on another party. It is a common-law offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a judge
Also criminal are (1) conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice and (2) intending to pervert the course of justice........
This is for outsiders chancing their arms rather than insiders.
The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
Definition and relevant rules of law
Misfeasance is determined in relation to privity of contract. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, the parties can do one of three things: (1) perform the duty fully; (2) perform the duty inadequately or poorly; or (3) fail to perform the duty at all. When a party fails to perform at all, it is nonfeasance. When a party performs the duty inadequately or poorly, it is misfeasance. Malfeasance is used to denote outright sabotage which causes intentional damage..................
At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.
This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways; but in other cases the courts are astute [ sic ] to find evidence of carelessness in the discharge of public duties and on that basis to award damages to individuals who have suffered thereby.
Do apparatchiks have duties? Yes. Are they covered by this one? May be.
Self Defence In English law
Traitor: Function: noun. Etymology: Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give.
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason
It sounds right to me. It sounds all right to Blair and Brown because they are getting away with it.
Defenses to liability
Defense of: (Self · Property)
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected, by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity, from tort liability for malicious prosecution. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process, have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action. See also Barratry, Vexatious litigation, Frivolous lawsuit, Immunity from prosecution, Restraining order abuse, Selective Prosecution
This lets corrupt prosecutors off the hook; a pity.
Self Defence In English law
Self-defence in English law is a complete defence in cases involving all levels of assault and can be used to mitigate liability from murder to manslaughter, where a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty uses a greater degree of force than necessary for self-defence, as differentiated from the situation in some of the Australian states in Self-defence). Hence, self-defence is distinguishable from provocation, which only applies to mitigate what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter (i.e., provocation is not a complete defence).
Because of the completeness of the defence, self-defence is interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defence, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event. Thus, although the jury in self-defence cases are entitled to take into account the physical characteristics of the defendant, that evidence has little probative value in deciding whether excessive force was actually used. The general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
It does not protect you from Malicious prosecution or from Selective Prosecution if you are English.
If it happens make a fuss then sue.
Refers to abuse of power.
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.
A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.
Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions.
This is written to exclude government prosecutors and police.
In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that have little to no chance of winning. While colloquially, a lawsuit may be termed frivolous if they personally find a claim to be absurd, regardless of its legal standing, in legal usage (with which this article is concerned), as by the judiciary of the United States, "frivolous litigation" is considered to consist of a legal claim or defense presented even though the party or the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile, that is to say, had no legal merit and may also lack legal standing.
Frivolous litigation may be based on absurd legal theories, may involve a superabundance or repetition of motions or additional suits, may be uncivil or harassing to the court, or may claim extreme remedies. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law. A claim may be deemed frivolous because existing laws unequivocally prohibit such a claim (see Good Samaritan law).
In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.
This is not quite what the rest of us would assume from the term.
Immunity from prosecution
Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity, usually to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence.
The prosecution may grant immunity in one of two forms. Transactional immunity (colloquially known as "blanket" or "total" immunity) completely protects the witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his or her testimony. "Use and derivative use" immunity only prevents the prosecution from using the witness' own testimony, or any evidence derived from the testimony, against him. However, should the prosecutor acquire evidence substantiating the supposed crime—independent of the witness's testimony—the witness may then be prosecuted for same.
While prosecutors at the state level may offer a witness either transactional or use immunity, at the federal level use immunity is the norm.
It would be important to talk to your lawyer before trusting the other side.
In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted because of a bias. In the US, this defense is based upon the 14th Amendment, which requires that "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.
Is this valid in English law? It should be given the realities of abuse carried out by the prosecutors. One law for the in crowd, another for honest men.
Rights Of The Accused
They can sound excessive but when they are compared with the powers of the state apparatus, especially in political cases it is different. Clive Ponting would agree after he was the victim of a Malicious prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911
Hue And Cry
In common law, a hue and cry (Latin, hutesium et clamor, "a horn and shouting," or from ME "hu" and AF "cri") is a process by which bystanders are summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who has been witnessed in the act of committing a crime.
By the statute of Winchester, 13 Edw. I cc. 1 and 4, (1285) it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal, which makes it comparable to the posse comitatus. It was moreover provided that a hundred that failed to give pursuit on the hue and cry would become liable in case of any theft or robbery. Those who raised a hue and cry falsely were themselves guilty of a crime.
Other variants follow below.
An AMBER Alert or a Child Abduction Emergency (SAME code: CAE) is a child abduction alert bulletin in several countries throughout the world, issued upon the suspected abduction of a child, since 1996. AMBER is officially a backronym for "America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response" but was originally named for Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old child who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996. Alternate alert names are used in Georgia (U.S. state), where it is called "Levi's Call" (named after Levi Frady); Hawaii, where it is called a "Maile Amber Alert" (named after Maile Gilbert); and Arkansas, where it is called a "Morgan Nick Amber Alert" (in memory of Morgan Chauntel Nick). Frady, Gilbert and Nick were all children who went missing in those U.S. states.
An American thing.
Is the power of any citizen to arrest anyone caught in the act.
Clameur de haro
The Clameur de Haro is an ancient legal injunction of restraint employed by a person that believes they are being wronged by another at that moment. It survives as a fully enforceable law to this day in the Channel Islands, and is used, albeit infrequently, for matters affecting land.
You need to be able to speak French to use this one.
Allowed night watchmen to arrest strangers and hold them until morning.
Are people who talk, who betray their fellow men. They are prone to be hated for their pains. There is law to protect them. It might even be effective.
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment. Updated on
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on 22/07/2015 12:50