The UK’s judges are a fraud in their own right and political interference is the driver
FirstforNews.com reports on the UK’s corruption of the UK justice system through political interference. Lawyers and the judiciary have become a law unto themselves, they are self-regulated and the administration of justice lacks independence.
The improper or corrupted administration of justice ruins people’s lives. Civilians are losing their children, homes, businesses and properties through the corrupt UK courts and until you or someone you know has been a victim, you may not even be aware of the skullduggery that goes on behind the façade of “justice”.
The UK’s justice system is a sham and its government under Boris Johnson, mired in scandals and cover ups, is by far the most corrupt in the country’s history. The leadership lack integrity, rules are bent and we have a case of “justice subject to status”, not what you know, but who you are and who you know. Members of the Conservative Party and their affiliates are provided impunity, whilst everyone else is punished with oppressive treatment by a justice system that fails to deliver justice.
A politically influenced judiciary presents a constitutional crisis and no business or individual is safe.
Unprecedented levels of political interference with courts”
“There has been nothing quite like it in my experience”IAN BURNETT – LORD CHIEF JUSTICE FOR ENGLAND AND WALES – December 2020
The Lord Chief Justice was referring to how Johnson’s Tory establishment have been coercing the courts and judiciary. What he was not so forthcoming on, is the fact that much of it comes from the Lord Chancellor himself, Robert Buckland QC MP. FirstforNews.com saw incontrovertible evidence that Buckland, who is sworn into office to “respect the rule of law” and defend the independence of the judiciary has himself been interfering with the courts.
The UK Government could be a bastion of international law and human rights, but instead it is undermining international criminal proceedings and standing in the way of justiceTHE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT – 14th April 2021
On 14th April this year the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) blasted Boris Johnson for “political interference” stating that:
“No longer can the UK Government genuinely assert that “Promoting international criminal justice and the rule of law are fundamental elements of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy”.
“Rather, the Prime Minister’s statement sets a wholly dangerous precedent by the UK, that may impact victims of grave crimes and threatens the viability, objectives, and the future of the court itself”
The ICC went on to state that “the UK Government should respect the impartiality and independence of the court, and should support – rather than substantially undermine – international legal frameworks and judicial mechanisms“.
The Conservative Party are so used to interfering with the UK’s judiciary that Johnson and his cronies clearly consider the conduct perfectly normal.
Every single one of us needs to be able to rely on the law and the courts to do justice, but under the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP’s control, it doesn’t happen. He has sworn an oath to maintain the independence of the courts and judiciary and to respect the rule of law, but he has done neither.
Buckland himself was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Bar Standards Board, with numerous newspaper articles in the public domain alleging that he has misled Parliament and the public. Another leader that altogether lacks integrity. The Conservative establishment promote them for following their orders.
“I, Robert James Buckland, do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
Last week, Lord Sikka wrote a compelling article exposing the wholly deficient regulation of the financial sector. The position is identical in relation to the legal profession and the judiciary themselves. Laws only work if they are enforced and in the UK, the regulators don’t regulate, the police are not policing for the people and the courts have not been doing justice, systemic corruption prevails.
When we say “systemic corruption” we refer to dishonest concealment, monopolistic powers, a culture of impunity for fellow idealists, including lawyers, public officials and judges who engage in what is essentially fraudulent activity, becoming normalised.
What we are talking about is an infestation of the UK’s public authorities and affiliated private institutions with parasitical elements. A distributed network of corruptors, each fulfilling different roles in political and ministerial posts throughout the UK’s public, judicial, law enforcement and regulatory authorities, following common purpose practices and general rules of secrecy. Abidance and compliance by the rules are rewarded, whilst non-compliance, such as whistle blowing or acting lawfully are penalised. The culture of systemic corruption is complex and involves shared expectations, internalised management, codes of conduct, strategy and procedures to protect the collective organisational structure and its activities from exposure. The conduct originates and is commanded by the highest echelons of central government, manifesting right the way through the entire system.
Intentionally deceptive action intended to procure unlawful gain
Many of the UK’s judges are acting with favour and ill-will, making gains for those they favour, acting under orders given by the political establishment, colluding with magic circle law firms, using the courts as cash cows, serving injustice, whilst the corrupt corporations or politically affiliated parties reap the rewards.
Thousands of innocent victims are being abused in this way, hoodwinked out of their right to a fair, unbiased trial and dispossessed of their rights as a civilian in law.
The perpetrators are, without question, a fraud, cheating the people, who are duped into belief they will find justice in the courts, with fraudulent activity intended to procure unlawful gain or to deprive of a right that one is otherwise entitled.
Fraudulent activity entails deceit, with the intent of illegally or unethically gaining at the expense of another, often involving the false representation of facts, whether by misrepresenting the true factual position, intentionally withholding material information, providing false statements, or claiming to be credited with accomplishments or qualities on fictitious terms. The latter applies to many of the UK’s judges, purporting to administer the rule of law, with honour, fairness and independence, when instead they deploy a spin of legal trickery and deceit designed to exhaust their victims through a system where remedy is consistently denied, rules are bent, laws are misrepresented, evidence is evaded and one side is favoured. The perpetrator’s conduct often results in the victim suffering financial ruin, the lawyers get rich whilst their clients end up being bankrupted.
Law is designed to protect civilians from this tyranny – it’s not working
The Promissory Oaths Act of 1868 is law today, law that is sworn to be upheld by all those taking up judicial office. The judicial oath is of paramount importance in defending the constitutional principles that underpin any democratic state.
One must be able to rely on the courts and the judges within them to administer the law and justice impartially and independently, for without, no business or individual is safe. All citizens must have confidence that cases will be decided fairly, according to law, but in the UK, the reality is, one cannot.
Historical foundation and constitutional importance of the judicial oath
The seeds of the UK justice system were first sown by Henry II in 1154 through to 1189, establishing a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges across the whole of the Kingdom, in contrast with over 40,000 today.
By the middle of the 13th century, knights had begun to join clerics on the bench. The first professional judges were appointed from the order of “serjents-at-law”. These were advocates who practiced in the Court of Common Pleas. Lawrence de Brok, a serjeant, became a judge in 1268, started the tradition, which lasted until 1875, of serjeants being the group from which judges were chosen. This was an important milestone in the evolution of modern justice, because it meant that the judiciary had real professional experience of the law before moving on to the bench. Over the years, serjeants were overtaken in popularity by barristers and solicitors.
During the 13th century the judiciary, instances of bribery were common and judges were regularly and openly accused of corruption. It was this flaw in the system that first led to the evolution of the oath. By 1346, all judges were obliged to swear that;
“I would in no way accept gift or reward from any party in litigation before them or give advice to any man, great or small, in any action to which the King was a party himself”
Even then, as is is the position today, that did not always curb the problem of judges being influenced by 3rd parties. In 1350, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, William de Thorpe, was sentenced to death for bribery. Thorpe accumulated great estates, particularly in Lincolnshire and it was said that his vast wealth was derived primarily from bribes. Thorpe was condemned to hanging and confiscation of all property. Bizarrely, by 1351, however, he was pardoned. In the subsequent year he was made baron of the exchequer. Whether that pardon was a result of political affiliations and favours is unknown, but highly likely.
In 1387, six judges advised King Richard II that a parliamentary commission set up to limit his own powers was ‘invalid and traitorous’. They were all impeached, convicted and sentenced to death, although only one was actually executed; the rest were banished to Ireland. There’s a long tradition of judges “looking after one another”, but more so today. Unsurprisingly, for two centuries after this the judiciary kept almost entirely away from politics.
Moving away from politics
During the turbulent 15th century, “the Wars of the Roses“, judges stood apart from both the Houses of Lancaster and York, and were largely unaffected by the changes in government. From 1540 onwards, Henry VIII had no judges in his Privy Council. His son Edward VI and daughter Mary I did include judges on their own Privy Councils, but Elizabeth I excluded them for 40 years. Again, in contrast to today, with all most senior judges being members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council.
On the face of it, the judiciary was becoming steadily more independent. By 1642, King Charles 1 was forced to agree to the appointment of judges “during good behaviour”, and their salaries were raised from under £200 to £1,000 a year in 1645. On the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, all judges, just 12 by that point, four in each of the common law courts, remained in office.
By 1668 the system of appointments “during pleasure” was reintroduced, and in the last 11 years of his reign Charles II sacked 11 of his judges. The next king, Charles’s brother James II, sacked 12 in just three years. This was bound to affect the quality of the judiciary: judges knew that their jobs were at risk if the sovereign did not like their judgments.
The solemn undertaking to Queen & Country to remain impartial
In 1868 the Promissory Oaths Act was made law, as it is today and all judges taking office must undertake to act in a constitutionally proper way, according to this law:
“I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the 2nd in the office of , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God.”
“Without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”, means just that. Today however, many of the UK’s judges have been acting with favour and ill-will, coerced by political or other third party interference to favour one side. Judges that breach their oaths are a fraud, for they purport to be something that they are not. A judge that breaches his or her oath, is no longer a judge and has no right to preside over cases. The issue is however, that in the UK, the judges are a law unto themselves, they are completely unregulated and unaccountable. The ones that are supposed to hold them to account, do not.
The supremacy of the rule of law is birthright of the people
The birthright (privileges or possessions that a person has or is believed to be entitled to as soon as he is born) of Englishmen and women depends upon the supremacy of the rule of law, its observance and their right to control their laws. The right to self-determination under the rule of our own law is the very fabric of the liberty of our society.
The rules of law and custom that determine that we have as a “birthright” our liberty are all the prerequisite duty of office to uphold and maintain. This is sworn to be upheld by those taking up any office under the Crown.
We the people have the right to determine whether a judge, or any one of us has broken the law, the oath of judicial office clearly being law, but the fact is, when it happens, there is no regulation nor enforcement of the law.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office” (“JCIO”) does not deal with any allegation of bias, and its governors, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice do nothing to regulate fellow members of their cabal.
Parliament’s powers to remove corrupt members of the judiciary
Both Houses of Parliament, the Commons and Lords have the power to petition The Queen for the removal of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The British people have the constitutional to petition The Queen when all else fails. This is a right of all civilians, exercised by petition to Parliament for an Order in Council to the Office of Privy Council.
The power of Parliament to remove a judge has in fact only ever been exercised once, when Sir Jonah Barrington was removed from office as a judge of the Irish High Court of Admiralty in 1830 for corruption after having misappropriated funds due to a litigant. No English High Court or Court of Appeal judge has ever been removed from office under these powers. Circuit and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor, however, he can only do so if the Lord Chief Justice agrees. That will clearly never happen.
The problem with the UK is that the leadership lack integrity, of course, all they lead is going to nosedive southwards, that’s precisely what’s happened. The corrupt Conservative Establishment has taken the “Great” out of Britain. Who wants liar leaders?