Lynch mobs at dawn

The naming and shaming of convicted criminals online has been endorsed by Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert. This appears to be yet another government [knee-jerk] plan to appease the masses be seen to be tough on crime, which hasn't really been thought through, in the government's sustained attack on our justice system.


The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.


Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers. 


The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.


What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.


Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.


Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!


*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.

Day 2 Letter to Ben

Dear Moron,
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:

• I am a lawyer currently earning under £25,000 per year, employed in the not-for-profit sector.
• I have been subject to a pay freeze for 2 years because my pay is linked to that of the public sector.
• I studied and worked for 10 years to obtain my professional status, coming from a disadvantaged background and winning a scholarship to complete my legal education on the basis of excellence and my commitment to access to justice.
• I often work long hours, work weekends and evenings and rarely have time to spend with my family because of my duty to the members of the public that I serve.
• I care, passionately, about the work that I do with some of the most vulnerable members of society and am disgusted by your inference that I care only about myself.
• The publication of this idiotic Bill reduced me to tears of despair because it will stop me helping the people who need my help the most.
• I don't give a damn about money, save for the fact that I must exist and provide food and accommodation for my family.
• I have no self-interest at all, much less self-interest that is being dressed up as something else.
• I am adversarial and with good cause. I am trained to be that way when there is a case to fight and a client to defend, as is the case here.
• I do not whinge and whine, I fight my corner and the corners of those who are unable to fight for themselves. Politicians should do the same.
• You are clearly one of the government's leading Numpties and may wish to consider putting your brain in gear before trying to discuss matters that you very obviously do not fully understand.

I will expect my personal apology by return of post.


Alice.

Day1 Letter to Ken

Dear Mr Clarke,


I have read, with interest, your response to the consultation on Legal Aid reforms and the resulting Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I note that, whilst you profess to have listened to all concerns raised, you have actually done little to take those concerns on board and make relevant changes to improve your imbecilic proposals.


You aim, so you say, to reform the system in order to ensure access to public funding in those cases that most require it and to ensure the early resolution of disputes in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. Having now read your consultation response and the resulting Bill in their entirety, I can say, with some certainty, that you are either entirely out of touch with reality and have no understanding of what is required to ensure your aims are met; or you have an alternate political agenda to perform.


I would agree entirely with your assertion that legal recourse should be the last port of call rather than the first. Unfortunately, your Bill fails entirely to recognise that approach by denying public funding to people wishing to resolve their disputes at an early stage; instead you see fit to only allow funding to be accessed long after court proceedings are issued - prime example of this being your suggestion that debt cases may only be funded where the home is at immediate risk and an order for sale is sought. This is a bizarre proposal from one so keen to resolve issues before they reach a court room. If you were to allow people legal assistance at the outset in this sort of situation, it would probably never get as far as a court room. I wonder if you have actually considered why cases like these even get to court? It isn't generally because the individuals want them to, more often it is because the corporate bodies involved refuse to negotiate reasonably and insist on forcing the matter before a judge to protect their interests (and why shouldn't they make use of the legal redress freely available to them). What I want to know is why don't you choose to regulate that type of behaviour rather than remove access to a proper defence from the already under-privileged?


You point out in your consultation response that individuals will be able to seek guidance from other sources at an early stage - I assume that you refer to services such as CABx which, whilst doing an excellent job providing generalist, low level, guidance, are often unable to do anything more than signpost users on to providers of legal services - even at the earliest of stages. As an individual who regularly mops up CABx mess, I can assure you that I am correct and even extend an invitation to you to come and see for yourself (I of course accept that facing the reality of your incompetence may not be something you wish to do, so I won't bother putting the kettle on any time soon). 


You have stated that the government supports the simplification of the legal system but that these reforms are not dependent on those measures, they should be. The current system is not easy for lawyers to navigate after years of training and in the vast majority of cases it would be unthinkable for a lay person to navigate their way through the system successfully. I fear your implication that the legal system could be accessed by litigants in person as the norm may be somewhat delusional and misguided.


Much of your rhetoric is directed at the current expense of Legal Aid in the UK compared to that of other countries and the need to reduce that spending. I absolutely agree with you on this general point. I think that the reason we are spending so much is a matter of societal values - ours are so far eroded that they barely exist. May you, perhaps, be better off concerning yourself with ensuring that rules and policing are tightened up rather than denying those already victims of the system access to justice and legal recourse? #Justsayin.


Mr. Clarke, you claim to have considered carefully the impact of your reforms on the more vulnerable members of our (yes, our, not your) society yet you fail to appropriately acknowledge what vulnerability can amount to - instead restricting your definition to older people, those with disabilities and those experiencing traumatising circumstances in which the proceedings are being brought. Whilst I accept that you do not categorically state no other vulnerability should be taken into account, your failure to use the broadest of definitions clearly has dramatic and devastating implications for the majority of vulnerable people, including those with physical and mental health issues. I do not accept that you have understood the wider implications of your proposals and I do not accept that you are acting in a manner which will offer protection to those members of our society which need it the most.


I was somewhat relieved to note in your response that you were to widen the criteria for family proceedings where domestic violence is present. I then read and digested your proposals. Domestic abuse is terrifying. It affects the victim's ability to function as a 'normal' person might. It is absurd to insist on objective evidence of abuse being present and all that this will be likely to achieve is more abused women staying in relationships under fear and duress because they can't afford to access the legal system. This will undoubtedly have an effect on the well-being of any children involved - aren't you supposed to protect the interests of the child? Perhaps i'm confused. In reality here Mr. Clarke, what you are going to achieve is ensuring that women have to beaten to the point of no return before they will be entitled to public funding to help remove them from their situation. I personally find that incomprehensible but then I know what it feels like.


I find myself astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in your consultation response regarding the way that the lower echelons of society function on a daily basis. I am appalled by the lack of understanding of peoples' basic needs and more so by the clear lack of true commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. Freedom from persecution is a basic human right, did you forget that when making your declaration of compatibility?


I have much, much more to say regarding this farcical approach to reform and will return to haunt you soon with the next installment.


Yours in disgust,


Alice.

Lucifer's Lizard cult strikes again

After reading a Bizzletastic blog post this evening I decided to wander off and take a look at the work of the Lizard nation for myself. What I found is frightening, funny, somewhat bizarre and very much a danger to those looking for a way to manage their debts without any legal advice or assistance.

The Lizard people are a bit like some freaky, bizarre cult (you really need to read the forums to get the feel of it). It is almost demonic in parts. Scary stuff – but have no fear, I have been practicing my Queen of Hearts chant and am ready to give the order “Off with their heads” while The Bizzle goes charging in.

I play on the opposite side of the fence to The Bizzle, for once though, we are in complete agreement; anyone trying out this insanity is just going to get themselves further into debt and probably land a criminal record to boot.

My favourite sample letter from the Lizard cult below for your amusement J

Notice of Public Declaration of Non-Jurisdiction – Denial of Service - Order to Dismiss Case

The Magicians Court, Lucifer Street, LH12XA.
Charge: Unlicensed Keeping of motor vehicle V245HBF on 15/10/2010
Allegedly authorised by John Dyson (electronic mark but not by his hand)

Summons Issue Date: 28 April 2011

Your Ref: 293SMK case calling 9th June 2011

My Ref: ChesterMagis02
Correspondance received by: John of the Doe Family (Authorised Agent and Affiant for MR JOHN DOE)
c/o House, Address, Town, [LH4 8FE], On Wales

DETAILS OF DECLARATION AND/OR DENIAL OF JURISDICTION:
I, John of the family Doe as the agent and representative & paramount security interest holder for MR JOHN DOE and I present this affirmation as a declaration and affidavit of truth to the court as evidence of the facts for and on the record:

• I do solemnly affirm that the facts contained herein are true, correct and certain

• I reserve all rights and waive all privileges.

• My vessel (person) is not bonded for the corporate legal arena.

• If your lawful authority is derived from QE2/THE CROWN then there is no case to answer as QE2 is not the legal Monarch and the legislation under which this case is being brought is fraudulent and unlawful and therefore null and void. Please refer to precedent case between REGINA/THE QUEEN/QE2 vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, 9-12 May 2011 where JAH was found not guilty.

• All Judges in the UK derive their authority from and swear an oath to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg (QE2) who is now proven to not be a lawful sovereign and any Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law). It should therefore be obvious that no judge in the U.K. could be impartial in a matter that questions Elizabeth's authority and thus called into question the judge's authority as well which would be a blatant conflict of interest.

• Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s (QE2/REGINA/) Fraudulent Coronation where she was crowned on a fake coronation stone and she promised to uphold "The Laws of God", which forbid her, parliament, or anyone else from legislating. She has broken this binding contract, and thus the contract is voided, meaning she or her agents have no actual authority to bring victimless, legislated charges against anyone.

Exhibits:
a) the fake coronation stone used (ref: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm), and
b) the broken coronation contract uphold the laws of God such as below verse. (Exhibit 1, enclosed) http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg
Details of QE2's fraudulent authority from the case REGINA/THE QUEEN vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, London, SE1 2HU, England, 9-12 May 2011 :

1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendent proved beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called “crown” is attacking the the agent with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against the 'I AM' and his Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendent.

2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM THAT I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.

Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
Deuteronomy 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

• Is this a CRIMINAL action or a CIVIL action? If it is a criminal action, then who and where is the INJURED PARTY? or if it is a civil action, then where is the CONTRACT?

• The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And we, as human beings, have the right to decline to contract.
Statutes do not apply, a STATUTE is a legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed – I do not give my consent, tacit or otherwise.
• I have no ‘UNDERSTANDING’ of this matter… I ‘UNDERSTAND’ no one.
• We are all equal in law however knowledge separates the governed from the masters. If we are all equal, do we not have the status of Sovereigns and Diplomats if we so choose?
• I will not allow a plea in my absence, anyone entering a plea without my written permission will be considered the defendant and responsible for all costs.
• This document does not form part of a negotiable instrument.
• We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
• I own no property nor do I claim title ownership to the name/trust Mr JOHN DOE .
• My law is the Holy Bible the words of the most high EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (I AM THAT I AM). “If righteousness is not made profitable, then corruption will prevail.”
EX Dolo malo non oritur actio - (Out of fraud no action arises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismiss this case as there is no jurisdiction or injured party and this flesh blood sentient man has not agreed to contract with your Corporation and owns no property.
Should an attempt be made to involve an Admiralty Court, Commercial Court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant's rights where your assumed authority will be questioned, the above evidence presented and the below fee schedule will apply.
If you wish to still persue Mr JOHN DOE , you must contact the trustee of the Estate (THE CROWN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEE SCHEDULE 
I claim the right to charge a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, de facto government principals, executives, officers, agents or justice system participants, as follows:

ONE THOUSAND (£1000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof for court appearances including travelling to / from court and

FIVE HUNDRED (£500) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and

FIVE THOUSAND (£5000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and

FIFTY THOUSAND (£50,000) POUNDS GBP PER DAY if any personal items in my keeping are taken away from me without my express written and notarized consent and

FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (£500,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care and if I am ever forced to suffer the effects of what has come to be known as non-lethal weapon such as a Taser, without my express written and Notarised consent.

FIVE MILLION (£5,000,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, without my express written and Notarised consent.

THIRTY THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated,

THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and

THREE BILLION UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, for any grievous or actual physical harm to my body or that of any member of my family.

I claim the right to use any and all lawful administrative and/or judicial processes I deem to be necessary in order to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE, against any and all transgressors, who, by their actions or omissions, harm me, my dependents or my family’s interests, directly or by proxy, in any way whatsoever.

Witness:------------------------------ By: ------------------------------------
Address: Authorised Representative of
JOHN DOE™
and any derivatives thereof.

Date:--------------------------------------

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse
- Non-Assumpsit Errors & Omissions Excepted