Armed with his Rousseauist doctrines of popular
sovereignty, or his Marxist ideas of power and
ideology, the revolutionary can de-legitimize any
existing institution and find quite imperceivable
the distinction between law aimed at justice and law
aimed at power.
Roger Scruton [ RIP], writing in 1989. He
would, I think be "on message" regarding Originalism.
Salus Populi Suprema Lex [
esto ]
[ 16 January 2017 ]
Salus Populi Suprema Lex
Pat Buchanan explains European Future
PS Salus populi suprema lex – The Jurisprude tells us that it is not quite that simple
Advice for Litigants in Person
Comes from
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/advice-for-lips/,
a rather good source. The book is at
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf.
It was written by men long in the business.
Laws
Some particular laws are mentioned.
Agent Provocateur ex Wiki
An agent provocateur (French
for "inciting agent") is a person who commits, or who acts to
entice
another person to commit an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in
partaking in an illegal act. An agent provocateur may be acting out of their own
sense of duty or may be employed by the
police or
other entity to discredit or harm another group (such as a peaceful protest or
demonstration) by provoking them to commit a crime, thereby undermining the
protest or demonstration as a whole.
The proper plural form of the term adds an s to the end of both words, agents provocateurs. A female agent or spy is called an agente provocatrice.[citation needed]
To prevent infiltration by agents provocateurs,[1] the organizers of large or controversial assemblies may deploy and coordinate demonstration marshals, also called stewards.[2][3]
Attorney General ex Wiki
The
Attorney General for England and Wales [ currently
Jeremy Wright - ex
Wiki ] is similarly the chief law officer of the Crown in England
and Wales, and advises and represents the Crown and government departments
in court. In practice, the
Treasury Solicitor (who also has the title of Procurator General)
normally provides the lawyers or briefs Treasury Counsel to appear in court,
although the Attorney General may appear in person. The person appointed to
this role provides legal advice to the Government, acts as the
representative of the public interest and resolves issues between government
departments.
The Attorney General has supervisory powers over the prosecution of
criminal offences, but is not personally involved with prosecutions;
however, some prosecutions (e.g.
Riot) cannot
be commenced without his/her consent, and he/she has the power to halt
prosecutions generally. Criminal prosecutions are the responsibility of the
Crown Prosecution Service, headed by the
Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney General may appeal cases
to the higher courts where, although the particular case is settled, there
may be a point of law of public importance at issue.
PS Attorneys general
can commit
Obstruction
of Justice - in America. The
Waco Massacre is a case in point. In England
ours Perverted The Course Of
Justice by allowing Treason At
Maastricht. The perpetrators were
Francis Maude and
Douglas Hurd.
Bankruptcy
Americans were
informed that bankruptcy was a personal financial tool. They took the point so
Big Business changed the law to stop them
using it. Of course it is different for the big people; it is just the rest
of us. Now, in England Griffin, the 'serial
swindler' who has run the British
National Party into the ground is laughing at the creditors he cheated. For people it is
a maximum of twelve months. If you are in a hole stop digging. Get those
debts written off.
Bill of Rights
This is the
American Bill, one with a virtue. It is written which makes more difficult to
ignore, to pervert, to abuse.
Blackmail
Is crime
that can put you in jail for years - unless your face fits.
British and Irish Legal Information Institute
-
https://www.bailii.org/
Gives
access to case law. See e.g.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/2694.html
on a Family Law case.
Brocards ex Wiki
A brocard is a
legal maxim in
Latin that
is, in a strict sense, derived from traditional legal authorities, even from
ancient Rome. The word is a variant of the
Latinized name of
Burchard of Worms (died AD 1025), Bishop of
Worms, Germany, who compiled 20 volumes of Ecclesiastical Rules.
One such is
Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto. Another is
Pacta sunt
servanda that applies when the Germans want.
Civil Contingencies Bill
Some law is good law. Most law is bad law. Any Act passed in
the last hundred years is likely to be unnecessary at best and tyranny at worst. This is one such.
Common Law
England has its common law rather than local laws.
Other countries followed suit. They were once part of the Empire.
Complicity
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
Politicians ignoring
deliberate breaches of the Constitution are complicit.
Coroners And Justice
Coroners are like Juries, independent of the rest of the
State. At all events, they were. Now they are being taken over by corrupt
politicians.
Court of Star Chamber
Bad law was the practice, if not the principle. It helped finish off the
Stuarts.
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
It comes from the horse's mouth.
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.
Criminal Law
The Wiki makes it plain and simple - by the standards of the
average pettifogging lawyer.
Director
of Public Prosecutions
The DPP should be honest.
It is his business to enforce the law so he should live by it but in
these times of gross corruption it doesn't work like that.
Discovery
Is about
sorting out the facts before trial.
Double Jeopardy
QUOTE
Double jeopardy is being tried twice for the
same crime. The patriotic Englishmen accused of doing the
Lawrence Job are being tried again, double
jeopardy notwithstanding because Her Majesty's Government has perverted
the law to get them. They are, like
Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition
malicious Racists who hate
England.
UNQUOTE
It is one of the standard defences in criminal cases.
Equality Before The Law ex Wiki
QUOTE
Equality before the law,
also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the
law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people
are subject to the same laws of justice (due
process).[1]
Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness,
and justice.
There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law.' The author
Anatole France said in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids
rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and
steal loaves of bread."[2]
The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."[1] According to the United Nations, this principle is particularly important to the minorities and to the poor.[1]
Thus, everyone must be treated equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other characteristics, without privilege, discrimination, or bias.
Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of
liberalism.[3][4]
UNQUOTE
Of course we must not forget the reality, that:-
SOME ARE
MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS in the den of iniquity run by
Her Majesty's Government.
Evidence
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.
Exclusion Clauses
QUOTE
A software company's stipulation that
customers could not take action against it for the poor performance of its
software was unfair and could not be enforced, the High Court
has said.
The software company
should have alerted its customer to problems with the product when
demonstrating it and chosen more demonstrations for it that more closely
matched the customer's own business requirements, the Court said.
UNQUOTE
Caveat emptor does not mean quite what various crooks want it to mean. See the
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977,
Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Extortion ex Wiki
Extortion
(also called shakedown, outwrestling and exaction) is a
criminal offense
of obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution,
through
coercion. It is sometimes
euphemistically referred to as a "protection
racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for
"protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other
parties; though often, and almost always, the person or organization
offering "protection" is the same one willing to cause harm if the money is
not paid, and such is implied in the "protection" offer. Extortion is
commonly practiced by
organized crime
groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to
commit the offense. Making a
threat of
violence
which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt
future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not
only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1]
but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of
something such as
pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In robbery, whether armed or not, the offender takes property from the victim by the immediate use of force or fear that force will be immediately used (as in the classic line, "Your money or your life"). Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if they do not comply with the extortionist's will. Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat, whereas robbery does not. In United States federal law, extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon.
In blackmail, which always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.
Neither extortion nor blackmail requires a threat of a criminal act, such
as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from
the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports
(true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging
facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising
position), etc.
PS Her Majesty's
Government uses extortion to make billions through
Taxation.
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 obliges public bodies to
tell you want you want to know, exemptions apart. It is a useful tool with
the force of law behind it. The system is used by Judicial
Watch but the Wikipedia is hostile because
they are not left wingers.
Golden Rule ex Wiki
The golden rule in
English law is one of the rules of
statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The
rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a
literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an
interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is
obnoxious to principles of public policy.
The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the
narrower approach and the wider approach.
Hostile Witness ex
Wiki
A hostile witness, otherwise known as an adverse
witness or an unfavorable witness, is a
witness
at
trial whose
testimony on
direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be
contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness.
Process
During direct examination, if the examining
attorney who called the witness finds that their testimony is antagonistic
or contrary to the legal position of their client, the attorney may request
that the judge declare the witness hostile.
If the request is granted, the attorney may proceed to ask the witness
leading questions. Leading questions either suggest the answer ("You saw
my client sign the contract, correct?") or challenge (impeach)
the witness' testimony. As a rule, leading questions are generally only
allowed during
cross-examination, but a hostile witness is an exception to this rule.
In cross-examination conducted by the opposing party's attorney, a witness is presumed to be hostile and the examining attorney is not required to seek the judge's permission before asking leading questions. Attorneys can influence a hostile witness' responses by using Gestalt psychology to influence the way the witness perceives the situation, and utility theory to understand their likely responses.[1] The attorney will integrate a hostile witness' expected responses into the larger case strategy through pretrial planning and through adapting as necessary during the course of the trial.[2]
Hue And Cry
Is the call to action for
the citizens after a criminal is seen.
International Law
It started with
Treaties, formal agreements between States. It evolved into something sometimes
binding law. Enforcement is another and different issue.
International
Russell Tribunal
When politicians escape justice because they run the system, this tribunal runs,
sometimes. It helps embarrass war criminals like Blair.
Jewish Exchequer
Handled matters between the King, Jews and people. It was arranged to prevent
Jews cheating; they
used it as an Engine
of Extortion.
Jury Law
Juries are not
loved by the government or the Establishment.
That is why we need them.
Jury
Nullification
Is their power not to convict in bad cases or with bad
law.
Justice
Some gross examples of injustice cast doubts on the whole system.
Justice Perverted
Is Justice Denied
Bad law makes for bad cases. Bad politicians make bad law. That
is how England is being destroyed.
Judging The Judges
They have lost sight of their proper role says Doctor Jones, a
classics man who knows about the democracy of Athens.
Jury Law
A jury is a man's last and best hope of a
fair trial in England. A jury has power but does not know it. Juries
should know.
Law Enforcement
That means police which in turn means corruption, arrogant,
idle bullies and expensive.
Lawyers Destroying
Civilization
You might feel that they are just parasites, sucking our
life blood by abusing legal aid. It is worse; they are, all too often
Lenin's Useful Idiots with an agenda.
Lawyers On The Make
Phil Shiner
is a greedy shit as well as a Socialist. But
when it comes to money he is a Capitalist
Swine.
Legal Abuses
Is about judges abusing
their power, judges acting
Ultra Vires,
asserting powers that they do not have, by abusing our ignorance.
Libel Law
In England is grossly repressive. Here is some background.
Lynching
Is reserve justice, backup
justice, effective justice. When it is preemptive justice lawyers object; it
does them out of business.
Mala Fide
Bad Faith- The fraudulent
deception of another
person; the
intentional or malicious
refusal to perform
some duty or
contractual obligation.
Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can make an honest mistake about one's own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith.
The existence of bad faith can minimize or nullify any claims that a person alleges in a lawsuit. Punitive Damages, attorney's fees, or both, may be awarded to a party who must defend himself or herself in an action brought in bad faith.
Bad faith is a term commonly used in the law of contracts and other commercial dealings, such as Commercial Paper, and in Secured Transactions. It is the opposite of Good Faith, the observance of reasonable standards of fair dealings in trade that is required of every merchant.
A government official who selectively enforces a nondiscriminatory law against the members of a particular group or race, thereby violating the Civil Rights of those individuals, is acting in bad faith.
Malice Aforethought
The meaning is clear enough until lawyers change it.
Manslaughter In English Law
In the
English law of
homicide,
manslaughter is a less serious offence than
murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the
mens rea
(Latin for
"guilty mind"). In
England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder,
with the judge
or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see
lesser included offence). The
jury then
decides whether the
defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On
conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion,
whereas a sentence of
life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter
may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether
the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
Manslaughter by gross negligence
Under English law, where a person owes a duty of care (either by statute
or by the neighbour principle[7])
and is negligent to such a degree that consequently the law regards it as a
crime[8]
(namely the person has been grossly negligent) and that person causes the
victim to die, he may be liable for gross negligent manslaughter.[9]
The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require
special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison
officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be
expected from a reasonable person of the same profession.[10]
In R v Bateman[11]
the
Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter
involved the following elements:
- the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
- the defendant breached this duty;
- the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
- the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
The House of Lords in Seymour[12] sought to identify the mens rea for "motor manslaughter" (negligently causing death when driving a motor vehicle). Reference was made to R v Caldwell and R v Lawrence[13][14] which held that a person was reckless if:..........
Miscarriages of Justice
England has the best
police force that money can buy. Add in prosecutors who want a guilty
verdict, defence solicitors who might or might not be competent and
judges who
might be prepared to swallow any cock and bull story they are fed then
worry.
Mischief Rule ex Wiki
The mischief rule[1]
is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by
English courts.[2]
The other two are the "plain
meaning rule" (also known as the "literal rule") and the "golden
rule".
The main aim of the rule is to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy". In applying the mischief rule, the court is essentially asking what part of the law did the law not cover, but was meant to be rectified by Parliament in passing the bill.
The rule was first set out in Heydon's Case, a 16th-century ruling of the Exchequer Court.
Misconduct In Public Office
Is de facto crime or malpractice by government officials. That includes
politicians, judges and all the rest of them. It is a law that should be
used far more often,
Misfeasance In Public Office
Is de facto government crime & related to
Misconduct In Public Office
Necessity In
Criminal Law ex Wiki
This article is about the definition of necessity according to
criminal law. For the concept of necessity in
tort,
see
Necessity (tort). For the concept of necessity in
international law, see
Military necessity. For concept of necessity in
constitutional law, see
Doctrine of necessity. For logical meanings, see
Necessary (disambiguation) and
Modal logic.
In the criminal law of many nations, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases[1] there is no corresponding defense in English law for murder.[2]
For example, a drunk driver might contend that they drove their car to get away from being kidnapped (cf. North by Northwest). Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm they sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct they are charged with; (b) they had no reasonable alternative; (c) they ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) they themselves did not create the danger they sought to avoid. Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove further than was reasonably necessary to get away from the kidnapper, or if some other reasonable alternative was available to them.
Nolle prosequi ex
Wiki
Nolle prosequi,[a]
abbreviated nol or
nolle pros, is
legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue".[3][4]
In
Commonwealth and US
common
law, it is used for
prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a
criminal case before
trial or before a
verdict
is rendered;[5]
it is a kind of
motion to dismiss and contrasts with an
involuntary dismissal. It is the approach that keeps
Boris Johnson,
Blair et al out of prison.
non
obstante veredicto
NOV (non obstante veredicto)
NOV is the acronym for the Latin phrase
non obstante veredicto, which directly
translates to “notwithstanding the verdict.” NOV or
non obstante veredicto is usually used in the
context of JNOV (judgment
non obstante veredicto) to describe a
judgment entered for one party even though a
jury has issued a
verdict for the opposing party. The
judge sets aside the jury’s verdict and enters a new
judgment without a new
trial.
PS Related(?) to the
Doctrine Of Necessity
ex Wiki & Perverting The
Course Of Justice
Nothing To Hide
If you have nothing to hide you should be open to telling the
government anything they want, whatvever they demand or should you? NO!
Privacy is not just a luxury. Talking can put you in prison. Get a lawyer
before you say anything to the police.
Originalism
Is another "ism"
invented by Marxists running
Propaganda machines. They did it to pervert the
idea that words mean what they say as distinct from what
Marxists want. Their problem with the
American Constitution is that the
words are written down in black and white. They can't be changed; they can
be abused or, more usually ignored.
Patent Law
Deals with aspects of intellectual property but not copyright.
Perjury
Is lying on oath - more or less.
Lawyers make it more complicated so that their little mates get away
with it.
Perverting The Course Of
Justice
Explains itself. Lawyers explain it so that the guilty walk
free.
Plain Meaning
Rule ex Wiki
The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is
one of three rules of
statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.[1]
The other two are the "mischief
rule" and the "golden
rule".
The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.[2] Additionally, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism.
Public Order Act 1986
Is used as a weapon to suppress free speech as the
Heretical Two found to their cost.
Res Judicata ex Wiki
Is a Latin term for already judged. It is rather like
Double Jeopardy; an action replay is
forbidden.
Resistance
to
Interrogation
You need to know this when government apparatchiks
start, especially if they are police.
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
Rule Of
Law
Is the idea that nobody is above the law, not even if they are
corrupt politicians like
Blair. The idea is related to Selective Prosecution
QUOTE
The Salic law (/ˈsælɪk/ or /ˈseɪlɪk/; Latin: Lex salica, German: Salisches Recht), also called the Salian law, was the ancient Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. The written text is in Latin[1] and contains some of the earliest known instances of Old Dutch.[2] It remained the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, and influenced future European legal systems. The best-known tenet of the old law is the principle of exclusion of women from inheritance of thrones, fiefs and other property. The Salic laws were arbitrated by a committee appointed and empowered by the King of the Franks. Dozens of manuscripts dating from the sixth to eighth centuries and three emendations as late as the ninth century have survived.[3]
Salic law provided written codification of both civil law, such as the
statutes governing
inheritance, and
criminal law, such as the punishment for
murder.
Although it was originally intended as the law of the Franks,[4]
it has had a formative influence on the tradition of
statute law that extended to
modern history in much of Europe, especially in the
German
states and
Austria-Hungary in
Central Europe, the
Low Countries in
Western Europe,
Balkan
kingdoms in
Southeastern Europe and parts of
Italy and
Spain in
Southern Europe. Its use of
agnatic succession [ male succession ] governed the succession of kings in kingdoms such as
France and
Italy.
UNQUOTE
It made a difference back then. The effects are with us yet.
Sedition
In The United Kingdom
Is being abolished, making it easier for various revolutionaries to get
away with their crimes.
Seditious
Conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)
is a crime under
United States law. It is stated as follows:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be
planned, it need not be actually attempted. According to Andres Torres and
Jose E. Velazquez, the accusation of seditious conspiracy is of political
nature and was used almost exclusively against
Puerto Rican
independentistas in the twentieth century.[1]
However, the act was also used in the twentieth century against communists,
(United
Freedom Front)[2],
neo-Nazis[3],
and terrorists such as the
Provisional IRA in Massachusetts and
Omar Abdel-Rahman.
PS So many politicians are guilty but they are above the law.
Self-Incrimination ex Wiki
Applying to England and Wales the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the
right to silence by allowing inferences to be drawn by the
jury in cases
where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an
explanation (in other words, the jury is entitled to infer that the accused
fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he or she refused to provide
the explanation during the time of the police questioning). The jury is also
free not to make such an inference.
Serial Litigants
Sharia Law
Small Claims Court ex Wiki
An important difference between small claims and other civil claims is that
the parties are usually unable to recover their legal costs, regardless of
who wins or loses. For this reason, most individuals and businesses involved
in small claims deal with them
without legal representation.[16]
The winning party will, however, generally be able to recover the following
costs, fee and expenses from the losing party:[17] The separate small claims procedure [ are for up to ] £10,000 in 2013.[24]
See the government issue
Handbook for Litigants in Person in re disclosure. State Coercion In England
Subversion In The United Kingdom
Sullivan Act
Supreme Court an important
example of committee packing
Unjust Enrichment
Unlawful
Command Influence ex Wiki
Unlawful Stop And Search Worth £100 A Minute
Cross-Examination ex Wiki
Variations by
jurisdiction
Since a witness called by the opposing party is presumed to be
hostile, cross-examination does permit
leading questions. A witness called by a direct examiner, on the other
hand, may only be treated as hostile by that examiner after being permitted
to do so by the judge, at the request of that examiner and as a result of
the witness being openly antagonistic and/or prejudiced against the party
that called them.
Affecting the outcome of jury trials
Attorneys anticipate
hostile witness' responses during pretrial planning, and often attempt
to shape the witnesses' perception of the questions to draw out information
helpful to the attorney's case.[4]
Typically during an attorney's
closing argument he will repeat any admissions made by witnesses that
favor their case. Indeed, in the United States, cross-examination is seen as
a core part of the entire
adversarial system of justice, in that it "is the principal means by
which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are
tested."[5]
Another key component affecting a trial outcome is the
jury selection, in which attorneys will attempt to include jurors from
whom they feel they can get a favorable response or at the least unbiased
fair decision. So while there are many factors affecting the outcome of a
trial, the cross-examination of a witness will often influence an
open-minded unbiased jury searching for the certainty of facts upon which to
base their decision.
English law
See also:
Right to silence in England
The right against self-incrimination originated in
England. In countries deriving their laws as an extension of
the history of English
Common Law, a body of law has grown around the concept of providing
individuals with the means to protect themselves from self-incrimination.
PS It was used by John Bodkin Adams
to beat the hangman.
When someone sues you it is worth knowing if it is a
habit. Various chancers make money this way. Some of them are major nuisances.
Is what Islamics use.
England and Wales does not have a separate small claims court.[13]
They are usually dealt with in the
County Court after being allocated to the small claims track of the
County Court system. Small claims take place under a modified set of rules.[14]
Low-value cases, including most non-personal injury cases up to £10,000, are
usually assigned to the small claims track, producing a small claims action
in the
County Court. These cases are heard by
district judges under an informal procedure.[15]
The law has been used and abused by Maggie Thatcher and her followers on. They
made corrupt law in order to harass the particular
Englishmen alleged to have killed Stephen
Lawrence, because Lawrence was a black, a Third
World alien; for that reason and no other. It was
malicious law made to bring
Malicious prosecutions,
Is being written out of English law, making it
easier for the corrupt to get away with destroying
Western Civilization.
The Sullivan Act of 1911 required licencing for pistols in New York because Sullivan, a
major criminal was helping his people rob outsiders.
The American Supreme Court wields great power. Its nine judges
are political appointees. It is naked power. Just watch the Jews fight for it.
The fact that Hispanics get there indicates that the Jews are anti-white not
pro-anyone else. One pernicious example is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is old,
ugly, a Marxist, a Jew and
stupid; she can barely string words together.
Unjust Enrichment is a term in English common law which
is splendidly clear 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.
Is a fairly obscure bit of American military law,
essentially about Perverting
The Course Of Justice.
The Daily Mail's articles do not qualify as authoritative
statements of English law but they are suggestive.
In law,
cross-examination is the interrogation of a
witness
called by one's opponent. It is preceded by
direct examination (in
Ireland, the
United Kingdom,
Australia,
Canada,
South Africa,
India and
Pakistan
known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a
redirect (re-examination in
Ireland,
England,
Scotland,
Australia,
Canada,
South Africa,
India,
Hong
Kong, and
Pakistan).
Redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who
performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided
during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during
cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross
examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the
opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed
multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (may vary
by jurisdiction).
In the
United States federal Courts, a cross-examining
attorney
is typically not permitted to ask questions that do not pertain to the
testimony offered during direct examination, but most
state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters
not raised during direct examination. Similarly, courts in England, South
Africa, Australia, and Canada allow a cross-examiner to exceed the scope of
direct examination.
Cross-examination is a key component of a trial and the topic is given
substantial attention during courses on
trial advocacy.[2]
The opinions of a jury or judge are often changed if cross examination casts
doubt on the witness. On the other hand, a credible witness may reinforce
the substance of their original statements and enhance the judge's or jury's
belief. Though the closing argument is often considered the deciding moment
of a trial, effective cross-examination wins trials.[3]
