Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Taxation is Theft

without comments

The income tax is theft because it redistributes money from some people to others. It assumes that the government owns your labor and the product of your labor. That’s an immoral assumption. Free people own their bodies and their labor – not the government. Therefore, when the government lays claim to your income, the product of your labor and your body, they are saying they own you. That’s morally wrong.

— Ron Paul

Written by anubis

September 10th, 2016 at 7:10 pm

The Law

without comments

Can’t remember where I got this but reading through it again, it deserves to be posted.

WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS !
CHAPTER I
MODERN MEDICINE-MEN

“The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science.” Charles Macklin

In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.

It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers ; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain trusters are lawyers ; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers ; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.”

It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.

And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.

Objection may be raised immediately that there is nothing strange or wrong about this. If we did not carry on our government and business and private activities in accordance with reasoned rules of some sort we would have chaos, or else a reversion to brute force as the arbiter of men’s affairs. True – but beside the point. The point is that it is the lawyers who make our rules and a whole civilization that follows them, or disregards them at its peril. Yet the tremendous majority of the men who make up that civilization, are not lawyers, pay little heed to how and why the rules are made. They do not ask, they scarcely seem to care, which rules are good and which are bad, which are a help and which a nuisance, which are useful to society and which are useful only to the lawyers. They shut their eyes and leave to the lawyers the running of a large part of their lives.

Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law. A man who will discourse at length about the latest cure for streptococci infection or describe in detail his allergic symptoms cannot begin to tell you what happened to him legally – and plenty did – when he got married. A man who would not dream of buying a car without an intricate and illustrated description of its mechanical workings will sign a lease without knowing what more than four of its forty-four clauses mean or why they are there. A man who will not hesitate to criticize or disagree with a trained economist or an expert in any one of a dozen fields of learning will follow, unquestioning and meek, whatever advice his lawyer gives him. Normal human skepticism and curiosity seem to vanish entirely whenever the layman encounters The Law.

There are several reasons for this mass submission, One is the average man’s fear of the unknown – and of policemen. The law combines the threat of both. A non-lawyer confronted by The Law is like a child faced by a pitch-dark room. Merciless judges lurk there, ready to jump out at him. (“Ignorance of the law is no defense.”) Cowed and, perforce, trusting, he takes his lawyer’s hand, not knowing what false step he might make unguided, nor what punishment might then lie in wait for him. He does not dare display either skepticism or disrespect when he feels that the solemn voice of the lawyer, telling him what he must or may not do, is backed by all the mighty and mysterious forces of law-and-order from the Supreme Court on down on the cop on the corner.

Then, too, every lawyer is just about the same as every other lawyer. At least he has the same thing to sell, even though it comes in slightly different models and at varying prices. The thing he has to sell is The Law. And it is as useless to run from one lawyer to another in the hope of finding something better or something different or something that makes more common sense as it would be useless to run from one Ford dealer to another if there were no Chevrolets or Plymouths or even bicycles on the market. There is no brand competition or product competition in the lawyers’ trade. The customer has to take The Law or nothing. And if the customer should want to know a little more about what he’s buying – buying in direct fees or indirect fees or taxes – the lawyers need have no fear of losing business or someone else if they just plain refuse to tell.

Yet lawyers can and often do talk about their product without telling anything about it at all. And that fact involves one of the chief reasons for the non-lawyer’s persistent ignorance about The Law. Briefly, The Law is carried on in a foreign language. Not that it deals, as do medicine and mechanical engineering, with physical phenomena and instruments which need special words to describe them simply because there are no other words. On the contrary, law deals almost exclusively with the ordinary facts and occurrences of everyday business and government and living. But it deals with them in a jargon which completely baffles and befoozles the ordinary literate man, who has no legal training to serve him as a trot.

Some of the language of the law is built out of Latin or French words, or out of old English words which, but for the law, would long ago have fallen into disuse. A common street brawl means nothing to a lawyer until it has been translated into a “felony,” a “misdemeanor,” or a “tort” ; and any of those words, when used by a lawyer, may mean nothing more than a common street brawl. Much of the language of the law is built out of perfectly respectable English words which have been given a queer and different and exclusively legal meaning. When a lawyer speaks, for instance, of “consideration” he is definitely not referring to kindness. All of the language of the law is such, as Mr. Dooley once put it, that a statute which reads like a stone wall to the lawman becomes, for the corporation lawyer, a triumphal arch. It is, in short, a language that nobody but a lawyer understands. Or could understand -–if we are to take the lawyers’ word for it.

For one of the most revealing things about the lawyers’ trade is the unanimous inability or unwillingness, or both, on the part of the lawyers to explain their brand of professional pig Latin to men who are not lawyers. A doctor can and will tell you what a metatarsus is and where it is and why it is there and, if necessary, what is wrong with it. A patient electrician can explain, to the satisfaction of a medium-grade mentality, how a dynamo works. But try to pin down a lawyer, any lawyer, on “jurisdiction” or “proximate cause” or “equitable title” – words which he tosses off with authority and apparent familiarity and which are part of his regular stock in trade. If he does not dismiss your question summarily with “You’re not a lawyer’ you wouldn’t understand,” he will disappear into a cloud of legal jargon, perhaps descending occasionally to the level of a non-legal abstraction or to the scarcely more satisfactory explanation that something is so because The Law says that it is so. That is where you are supposed to say, “I see.”

It is this fact more than any other – the fact that lawyers can’t or won’t tell what they are about in ordinary English – that is responsible for the hopelessness of the non-lawyer in trying to cope with or understand the so-called science of law. For the lawyers’ trade is a trade built entirely on words. And so long as the lawyers carefully keep to themselves the key to what those words mean, the only way the average man can find out what is going on is to become a lawyer, or at least to study law, himself. All of which makes it very nice – and very secure – for the lawyers.
Of course any lawyer will bristle, or snort with derision, at the idea that what he deals in is words. He deals, he will tell you, in propositions, concepts, fundamental principles – in short, in ideas. The reason a non-lawyer gets lost in The Law is that his mind has not been trained to think logically about abstractions, whereas the lawyer’s mind has been so trained. Hence the lawyer can leap lightly and logically from one abstraction to another, or narrow down a general proposition to apply to a particular case, with an agility that leaves the non-lawyer bewildered and behind. It is a pretty little picture.

Yet it is not necessary to go into semantics to show that it is a very silly little picture. No matter what lawyers deal in, the thing they deal with is exclusively the stuff of living. When a government wants to collect money and a rich man does not want to pay it, when a company wants to fire a worker and the worker wants to keep his job, when an automobile driver runs down a pedestrian and the pedestrian says it was the driver’s fault and the driver says it wasn’t – these things are living facts, not airy abstractions. And the only thing that matters about the law is the way it handles these facts and a million others. The point is that legal abstractions mean nothing at all until they are brought down to earth. Once brought down to earth, once applied to physical facts, the abstractions become nothing but words – words by which lawyers describe, and justify, the things that lawyers do. Lawyers would always like to believe that the principles they say they work with are something more than a complicated way of talking about simple, tangible, non-legal matters ; but they are not. Thus the late Justice Holmes was practically a traitor to his trade when he said, as he did say, “General propositions do not decide concrete cases.”

To dismiss the abstract principles of The Law as being no more, in reality, than high-sounding combinations of words may, in one sense, be a trifle confusing. Law in action does, after all, amount to the application of rules to human conduct ; and rules may be said to be, inevitably, abstractions themselves. But there is a difference and a big one. “Anyone who spits on this platform will be fined five dollars” is a rule and, in a sense, an abstraction ; yet it is easily understood, it needs no lawyer to interpret it, and it applies simply and directly to a specific factual thing. But “Anyone who willfully and maliciously spits on this platform will be fined five dollars” is an abstraction of an entirely different color. The Law has sneaked into the rule in the words “willfully and maliciously.” Those words have no real meaning outside of lawyers’ minds until someone who spits on the platform is or is not fined five dollars – and they have none afterward until someone else spits on the platform and does or does not get fined.

The whole of The Law – its concepts, its principles, its propositions – is made up of “willfullys” and “maliciouslys,” of words that cannot possibly be pinned down to a precise meaning and that are, in the last analysis, no more than words. As a matter of fact, the bulk of The Law is made up of words with far less apparent relation to reality than “willfully” or “maliciously.” And you can look through every bit of The Law – criminal law, business law, government law, family law – without finding a single rule that makes as much simple sense as “Anyone who spits on this platform will be fined five dollars.”

That, of course, is why a non-lawyer can never make rhyme or reason out of a lawyer’s attempted explanation of the way The Law works. The non-lawyer wants the whole business brought down to earth. The lawyer cannot bring it down to earth without, in so doing, leaving The Law entirely out of it. To say that Wagner Labor Act was held valid because five out of the nine judges on the Supreme Court approved of it personally, or because they thought it wiser policy to uphold it than to risk further presidential agitation for a change in the membership of the Court – to say this is certainly not to explain The Law of the case. Yet to say this makes a great deal more sense to the layman and comes a great deal closer to the truth than does the legal explanation that the Act was held valid because it constituted a proper exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. You can probe the words of that legal explanation to their depths and bolster them with other legal propositions dating back one hundred and fifty years and they will still mean, for all practical purposes, exactly nothing.

There is no more pointed demonstration of the chasm between ordinary human thinking and the mental processes of the lawyer than in the almost universal reaction of law students when they first encounter The Law. They come to law school a normally intelligent, normally curious, normally receptive group. Day in and day out they are subjected to the legal lingo of judges, textbook writers, professors – those learned in The Law. But for months none of it clicks ; there seems to be nothing to take hold of. These students cannot find anywhere in their past knowledge or experience a hook on which to hang all this strange talk of “mens rea” and “fee simple” and “due process” and other unearthly things. Long and involved explanations in lectures and lawbooks only make it all more confusing. The students know that law eventually deals with extremely practical matters like buying land and selling stock and putting thieves in jail. But all that they read and hear seems to stem not only from a foreign language but from a strange and foreign way of thinking.

Eventually their confusion founded though it is in stubborn and healthy skepticism is worn down. Eventually they succumb to the barrage of principles and concepts and all the metaphysical refinements that go with them. And once they have learned to talk the jargon, once they have forgotten their recent insistence on matters-of-factness, once they have begun to glory in their own agility at that mental hocus-pocus that had them befuddled a short while ago, then they have become, in the most important sense, lawyers. Now they, too, have joined the select circle of those who can weave a complicated intellectual riddle out of something so mundane as a strike or an automobile accident. Now it will be hard if not impossible ever to bring them back tot hat disarmingly direct way of thinking about the problems of people and society which they used to share with the average man before they fell in with the lawyers and swallowed The Law.

Learning the lawyers’ talk and the lawyers’ way of thinking – learning to discuss the pros and cons of, say, pure food laws in terms of “affectation with a public contract” – is very much like learning to work cryptograms or play bridge. It requires concentration and memory and some analytic ability, and for those who become proficient it can be a stimulating intellectual game. Yet those who work cryptograms or play bridge never pretend that their mental efforts, however difficult and involved, have any significance beyond the game they are playing. Whereas those who play the legal game not only pretend but insist that their intricate ratiocination’s in the realm of pure thought have a necessary relation to the solution of practical problems. It is through the medium of their weird and wordy mental gymnastics that the lawyers lay down the rules under which we live. And it is only because the average man cannot play their game, and so cannot see for himself how intrinsically empty-of-meaning their playthings are, that the lawyers continue to get away with it.

The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets, such as ambulance-chasing or the regular defense of known criminals, which make up only a tiny part of the law business and against which the respectable members of the bar are always making speeches and taking action. A John W. Davis, when he exhorts a court in the name of God and Justice and the Constitution – and, incidentally, for a fee – not to let the federal government regulate holding companies, is playing the racket for all it is worth. So is a Justice Sutherland when he solemnly forbids a state to impose an inheritance tax on the ground that the transfer – an abstraction – of the right to get dividends – another abstraction – did not take place geographically inside the taxing state. And so, for that matter, are all the Corcorans and Cohens and Thurman Arnolds and the rest, whose chief value to the New Deal lies not in their political views nor even in their administrative ability but rather in their adeptness at manipulating the words of The Law so as to make things sound perfectly proper which other lawyers, by manipulating different words in a different way, maintain are terribly improper. The legal racket knows no political or social limitations.

Furthermore, the lawyers – or at least 99 44/100 per cent of them – are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.

Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn’t realize it’s a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. As Harold Laski is fond of putting it, in every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.
It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities – a fact which is little appreciated – when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation. That crop, 150 years later, is still growing in numbers and in power.

What is really needed to put the lawyers in their places and out of the seats of the mighty is no more than a slashing of the veil of dignified mystery that now surrounds and protects The Law. If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges.

There was President Roosevelt’s plan to add to the membership of the Supreme Court, in order to get different decisions. Even those who opposed the plan – and they of course included almost all the lawyers – recognized, by the very passion of their arguments, that the plan would have been effective : in other words, that by merely changing judges you could change the Highest Law of the Land. And when the Highest Law of the Land was changed without even changing judges, when the same nine men said that something was constitutional this year which had been unconstitutional only last year, then even the most credulous of laymen began to wonder a little about the immutability of The Law. It did not add to public awe of The Law either when Thomas Dewey’s grand-stand prosecution of a Tammany hack was suddenly thrown out of court on a technicality so piddling that every newspaper in New York City raised an editorial howl – against a more or less routine application of The Law. And such minor incidents as the recent discovery that one of Staten Island’s leading law practitioners had never passed a bar examination, and so was not, officially, a lawyer, do not lend themselves to The Law’s prestige.

Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of happenings like these to break down, effectively, the superstition of the grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of most men. It will take some understanding of the wordy emptiness and irrelevance of the legal process itself. It will take some cold realization that the inconsistencies and absurdities of The Law that occasionally come into the open are not just accidents but commonplaces. It will take some awakening to the fact that training in The Law does not make lawyers wiser than other men, but only smarter.

Perhaps an examination of the lawyers and their Law, set down in ordinary English, might help achieve these ends. For, despite what the lawyers say, it is possible to talk about legal principles and legal reasoning in everyday non-legal language. The point is that, so discussed, the principles and the reasoning and the whole solemn business of The Law come to look downright silly. And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.

Written by anubis

July 16th, 2016 at 8:51 am

An agreement of the people for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right and freedom

without comments

We will be clear about only one thing after the EU referendum on 23rd June. Either we will be living in a more democratic society, or we will not. This is just as it should be, given that this is a constitutional referendum focused not on particular economic or social policies or outcomes but on process, the process by which we organise and relate to democratic government. The EU is not just a trade group, single market or debating society, it is an important part of our government.

There will be economic and social outcomes. There are risks and there will be consequences – either way – as to trade, GDP, immigration, unemployment, house prices and so on, but not only are these almost impossible to assess or predict, they are also beside the main point. The main point is that we are voting about democracy, and democracy is about freedom, and democracy and freedom matter.

Emphasising democracy does not imply that the people will have taken control if the vote is for ‘Leave’. Sovereignty, national or popular, will not have landed on Dover beach. Indeed, given the parlous state of our actually existing democracy it is not unlikely that the government would manage (the mot juste) to keep the UK in the EU despite a vote to the contrary. It should be noted too that the EU is not the only challenge to our democracy and our freedom; the malaise is wide and deep.

Nevertheless, a vote to leave is the democratic thing to do, and will be of great significance. The demos can strike a blow against the collusion and entanglement of the UK with a very undemocratic institution, and can land a blow on those ‘mind forg’d manacles’ too. Settling for a good king rather than a bad parliament should, now we have been asked, be turned down.

We also need to keep our eye on the ball. It is a symptom of the deeply apprehensive mood of our times that tragic events such as the killing of Jo Cox MP can so easily plunge society into the sort of understandably emotional responses that we have seen in the last week. Now indeed is the time for cool heads, and reason to be strong.

Few bother to dispute that the EU is undemocratic. For example, the Times editorial on 18th June set out its case for Remain, but simply concedes the democratic point, ‘The institutions that run the world’s biggest trading bloc foster democracy in new member states but are themselves undemocratic, meddling and short-sighted’. This is admirably frank, but it simply underlines how little importance is attached to the democratic dimension. Such has been obvious too from the referendum debate, and it bespeaks a great danger – that democracy is considered no longer worth fighting for.

To mention democracy is to provoke frowns of exasperation, winces of guilt, and ever more elaborate redefinitions of ‘what we really mean by democracy in a complex global economy in which nations are past their sell-by date’. It is sometimes added with neither conviction nor credibility that the EU, well, can perhaps be ‘reformed from within’. Most often though we are told that things are just too complicated now for an old-fashioned idea like democracy.

Democracy, in fact, is a pretty straightforward thing. It is based on an understanding of the equal worth of every human being, and it is above all about freedom. Freedom is about the ability of an individual to act without unnecessary constraint, and about a people being able to live under a government of its own choosing. It is also more than that. Freedom is an attitude. The very concept recognises that we are indeed unduly constrained not just by nature and necessity but also by the structures and frameworks that we have created for ourselves, and it expresses a yearning, and also the confidence that we have it in ourselves, to overcome these limitations and do so much better. If we give up on this, we will have given up.

That parliamentary democracy was about freedom was obvious to those who fought for it in the first place. In 1647, one of the simple demands that the Levellers proposed to the General Council of the Army at Putney was ‘That the people do of course choose themselves a parliament once in two years’. Their magnificent manifesto was entitled ‘An agreement of the people for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right and freedom’. In 1776, the American revolutionaries who had been denied representation in the British parliament published their Declaration and they listed liberty, after life, as the second of their inalienable rights. In 1840, the young Chartist, Samuel Holberry, was arrested in his bedroom with a dagger in his hand. He admitted that he would indeed use it ‘in defence of the Charter and to obtain liberty’. He died in prison two years later, and it is said that up to 50,000 people followed his funeral procession to Sheffield General Cemetery. In 1863 at Gettysburg, where there had been about 23,000 casualties on each side, Abraham Lincoln defended ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’, and said that victory in that cause would herald ‘the new birth of freedom’.

As the examples above illustrate, democracy and freedom grew with and within nation states. This was the historical form and vehicle for the expression of the individual and collective freedom of the people. The understanding followed that people in other states were also entitled, in theory at least, to the same. Woodrow Wilson put the matter succinctly in a speech to Congress in 1918, ‘National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.’ True internationalism implies such an approach. The workers of the world must indeed unite, but this will not be achieved at the behest and service of Jean-Claude Juncker.

In order to be free, people need to form a political unit, a demos. It can come in many shapes and sizes. It can be as large as India or the United States of America or as small as Luxemburg or San Marino, but demos there must be if the people are to be able freely to participate in, and determine themselves through, their own government. There is, patently, no European demos. It may be desirable to build one, but as should be clear not least from many referendums the EU is certainly not the institution to do so.

The EU has never been designed to operate on a democratic basis. The Council of Ministers, composed of one minister from each of the 28 member states, is firmly in the driving seat, and with double majority voting now the norm, the wishes of any given national electorate may simply be overridden. The only body that can initiate legislation within the EU is the Commission, which is composed of one Commissioner appointed by each national government, plus 33,000 staff. There is much talk of the power of Parliament to censure the Commission (it has never actually done so) and of its increased powers to revise, amend and agree legislation. The key issue is the power of Council. The simple truth is that even with the ‘co-decision’ powers given to Parliament alongside Council in the legislative process, the Council can simply veto any legislative proposal. The Court of Justice of the European Union, with one judge appointed by each of the member states, interprets and applies EU law in all member states, and can overrule national law where EU law applies. There it is.

In considering the respect this institution has for democratic process, its treatment of Greece, Italy and Cyprus should give the stoutest EU loyalist pause for thought. In 2011, the Greek prime minister George Papandreou proposed to put the EU’s austerity proposals of Greece to the people of Greece in a referendum. Under pressure from the EU, which was furious at his idea of consulting the people on such an important issue, he was bundled out of office. A coalition was installed, headed by an unelected prime minister, Lucas Papademos, an economist and former Vice-President of the European Central Bank.

When, four years later, the Greek people, courtesy of a Syriza-led coalition, did get the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the terms of an EU-arranged bailout, they rejected the terms by 61% to 39%. The EU, which had taken Greece into the Eurozone in 2001 despite the fact that it could not possibly meet the ‘euro convergence criteria’, then rejected the Greek people – our terms or nothing – and a week later the Greek government caved in and sided with the EU. In fact, the government had to accept a deal containing even larger pension cuts and tax increases, which was presumably intended to teach the Greek people a lesson for having the cheek to express their view about how their debt crisis might be resolved. Even the IMF disapproved. George Osborne, however, appears to have been impressed. He has now promised a punishment budget of £15bn in tax rises and £15bn of spending cuts for British voters if the Leave campaign wins the referendum.

In Italy, on the day after Papademos took power in Athens, Mario Monti, another economist and a former EU Commissioner for nine years, was installed in Rome. He served as prime minister for two years despite being unelected. This was considered especially acceptable because it got rid of the horrible Silvio Berlusconi, who was hated by everyone, well, apart from the voters who kept returning him to office. In Cyprus in 2013, the EU Commission, ECB and IMF insisted amongst other things that in return for a bailout, a levy of 47.5% be taken on all deposits of more than €100,000 in the two largest Cypriot banks. The people were not consulted. They were just relieved of their money. The Economist called the bailout ‘Unfair, short-sighted and self-defeating’.

The important point that these events establish is that democracy will not be trusted by the EU to deal with such crises, or rather to deal with them in any way other than by making the people pay, and keeping the system that caused the crisis intact. Bring in the technocrats they say, take emergency powers, pass emergency measures, tear up private property rights, suspend elected government, whatever it takes.

Worse, it is not just the EU and its apologists who say this. Democracy is now widely discounted as a satisfactory form of government. Rule by the experts, say the chattering classes, is better than chaos, autocracy or military rule. They seek to insulate national governments from popular pressure and accountability. They describe those who call for democracy ‘populists’. They tell us to be very afraid, and to do what you are told. It is a recipe for disaster. Nothing, let alone the crises of failing systems, can be solved in the long term without the consent of the people involved, and that consent can only be obtained through democratic structures and practices, and that in the end is because people still want to be free.

We should never accept that the answer to a financial crisis is to give a supranational institution, with undemocratic structures and a figleaf parliament, the authority to evict a democratic government so that it can dictate terms directly to the people that government is supposed to serve. We can do better than that.

‘National aspirations must be respected’ said Wilson. Not by the EU. When the Irish people voted in a referendum on the Nice Treaty in 2001 and rejected it, they were asked to revisit their decision. Among other things people had been worried by the proposed extension of majority voting in the Council, on the basis that it put smaller states at a greater disadvantage. The EU would normally not even notice a low turnout (34%), but on this occasion the Irish were asked to vote again, and the following year they were persuaded by their government to approve the Treaty.

In 2005, four countries held referendums on a new constitution for the EU – France and the Netherlands voted against, and Spain and Luxembourg voted for. The EU paused, rewrote the proposal and presented it in 2008 as the Lisbon Treaty in more or less exactly the same terms. A whole continent just looked the other way. This time only Ireland held a referendum, and the vote went against the new treaty 53.4% to 46.6% on a turn out of 53.1%.

The EU’s Irish Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, later commented ‘all of the political leaders know quite well that if a similar question was put to their electorate by a referendum, the answer in 95 per cent of the countries would probably have been ‘No’ as well.’ At the time, quite unperturbed by the fact that no other country had held a referendum or that most people took the McCreevy view, an editorial in the pro-EU Guardian newspaper described the Irish people who had dared to vote against the treaty as ‘a horde of Goths at the gates of Rome’. A second referendum was duly held in 2009. It was after the financial crisis had broken, and this time the treaty was easily approved.

So, the EU is not itself a democratic institution and it does not respect democratic societies. Yet for all that, the real democratic problem with the EU is not the structures or behaviours in themselves. The problem is that an institution of this sort is a useful mechanism by which national governments are empowered to make major decisions of law and policy without proper discussion in their own democracies. It is popular sovereignty more than national sovereignty that is denied at the heart of the EU. It was no coincidence that the governments of all the member states, save constitution-bound Ireland, decided not to hold referendums on the Lisbon Treaty. They were not going to allow their electorates to prevent them from proceeding in the manner to which they had become accustomed.

The governments of member states appoint their ministers, commissioners and judges to the EU. They can uphold their national interests as they see them, but they are sheltered from discussing and justifying back home the actions and decisions they take in Brussels. In the UK, all of the various domestic procedures for approval and scrutiny of EU law are of little weight against the Council and its Commission, and they certainly cannot make up for the fact that the public is so distanced from the decision-making process that it cannot begin even to understand it. It is unsurprising that the turnout for the EU parliament election in the UK was 35.6% in 2014, and the EU average was 42.6% (and that includes Belgium 89.6% and Luxembourg 85.5%).

A couple of recent cases are also instructive. In the negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty the UK and Polish governments negotiated Protocol 30, a so-called ‘opt-out’ from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In the run up to treaty signature in December 2007 Foreign Secretary David Miliband reported ‘The Government sought to ensure that nothing in the Charter of Fundamental Rights would give national or European courts any new powers to strike down or reinterpret UK law, including labour and social legislation. This has been achieved.’

Well, in 2011, in the case of NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Court of Justice of the European Union at Luxembourg, the British government did not even bother to argue (and had already abandoned the effort before the UK Court of Appeal) that Protocol 30 exempted the United Kingdom from its obligations to comply with the requirements of the Charter relating to its treatment of asylum seekers. The provisions of the Charter offer somewhat greater protection to asylum seekers than national law in the UK or that provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court at Strasbourg.

In 2015, the case of Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan a cook who had been sacked by the Sudanese embassy was unable to claim for a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (which implement an EU Council Directive) at an Employment Tribunal. The State Immunity Act 1978, a primary act of the UK parliament, barred such proceedings on grounds of diplomatic immunity. The Court of Appeal found that the Act did not need to extend immunity to a cook, and thus offended Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which protects access to a court. There was again no mention of Protocol 30 and no dispute that the Charter is directly effective in the UK so far as claims based on EU law are concerned (eg the ‘working time’ claim), and the court simply ‘disapplied’ or struck down the relevant sections of the Act so they were no longer law for the purposes of this case, and the cook’s claim could proceed.

The importance of the decision lies in the fact that the Human Rights Act 1998 made it a point of constitutional principle that a court could declare a primary act of parliament to be incompatible with a right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, but such a declaration would not affect the continuing enforcement of that act. It was only a ‘signal’ to parliament that it should consider amending or repealing the act. This was the much-vaunted compromise whereby the sovereignty of parliament vis-à-vis the judiciary was to be maintained. Good-bye to all that compromise now, across a new swathe of human rights law. In Benkharbouche the Court of Appeal, using the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, simply amended the primary act of the sovereign parliament for the purposes of the case.

Many people, especially those who work in defence of the interests of asylum seekers and employees, will welcome these decisions, and understandably so. They do not, however, have also to welcome the means by which they were achieved. It matters greatly in democratic terms that these decisions were made by courts using powers that the government had specifically told the people these courts did not possess. Those who do not recognise that should perhaps check their democratic compass.

The cases also show the cynicism of the Labour government in promoting the notion of an opt-out that manifestly never was, and show too the growing confidence of the European and domestic courts in extending their jurisdictions using the Charter and other EU law.

The cases also point up a wider democratic issue with regard to the role of the judiciary, which is deeply intertwined with both the waning belief in democracy and the role of the EU. Despite its ‘ingenious’ sovereignty compromise, the Human Rights Act 1998 in fact gave the judiciary unprecedented scope to make law, and to do so on the basis of general principles rather than tightly defined provisions and precedents. And now, EU law has extended that scope, and given the courts an undebated and mostly unremarked extension of their power to strike down primary acts of parliament.

The judicial branch of government plays an important role, not least in defending the rule of law. It has, however, been pushed into deciding matters that properly belong in the sphere of democratic politics, not law. The rule of law is important, but representative democratic procedures are the most progressive aspects of the legal-constitutional package, because they give much fuller expression to the principle of equality and the practice of freedom. When we talk about the rule of law, it is democracy that should decide which laws should rule. It is important to insist upon this because the importance of democracy has been significantly diminished in recent decades. ‘Majoritarian’ has become a pejorative usage. It refers in fact to a procedure that is based on the idea that people are equal and that majority voting is the only way yet devised to give effect to that principle.

There are those who argue that enhanced judicial power does not infringe democratic principle, because the aim of democracy is to accord all individuals equal status and respect. They argue that while this imperative will usually be satisfied by the use of majoritarian procedures, such as parliamentary democracy, there is also a legitimate place for non-majoritarian procedures, such as rule by the judiciary in respect of important policy matters, so long as the procedures themselves conform to the underlying aim.

This is wrong. Even though such procedures may be sanctioned by our elected representatives, and operate in the context of the rule of law, this argument is nothing less than a denial of the principle that all citizens are equal, and that a true expression of that equality will involve their meaningful participation in important policy decisions. Democracy is fundamentally about process not outcomes, and it is about the participation of the people in that process. It is not about what is done for them, or to them. It is about what they do. That is what freedom too is about.

It is said that democracy works at many levels – indeed it does, it can be local, national and international; legislative, executive and judicial. A great deal of delegation and outsourcing is inevitably involved. The key level, however, is the level where participation and control by the people occurs, and there has been a consistent shift from this level, away from the people to the experts and technocrats. This is what the shift of power to the judiciary in London, Strasbourg and Luxembourg entails, and also what the shift of decision-making to the EU entails.

Others argue that, given the weakness of our democratic institutions, not to mention the cynicism and contempt in which they are held, we have no choice but to rely upon a judicial elite – or an EU. That is an argument for improving and strengthening those institutions rather than with dispensing with them. We should also reject the idea that even if parliament is being sidelined at least the rule of law is being strengthened. On the contrary, the rule of law is itself degraded by the recourse to general principles and the vesting of wider discretionary powers in the judiciary, let alone the functionaries of the EU.

As for the people, they are finding it hard to get a look in. They are being kept a long way away from the decision making process. Take the case of Hirst v United Kingdom. In 2015 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg decided that the UK statute denying convicted prisoners the right to vote in domestic elections was in breach of their democratic rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be amended. Interestingly, in October 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde accepted jurisdiction of ‘prisoner voting’ case in France, on the basis of the application of Articles 39 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The main point here of the unresolved Hirst case is that a political issue has been reposed as a legal one, so as to suggest that there is in fact a right answer which the expert alone, the judge, is able to discover. There is no right answer. There is a difference of opinion about whether prisoners should be allowed to vote. In a democratic society an important issue like this should be decided by majoritarian democratic procedures, in which people are involved – with public discussion, investigation, researching, discussing, lobbying, and then voting.

The fair point has been made that the UK government has consistently approached the EU in a grudging, hostile and instrumental way. It does not follow that this is a behavioural glitch in the workings of the EU which some remedial therapy might remove. No doubt the UK is graceless about its refusal to entertain ‘ever greater union’ or embrace the ‘social’ dimensions of the Union or the opportunities for ‘solidarity’. The fact is that the EU today is primarily a market bloc not a mutual or co-operative society. It is true that there were and are ambitions for a different trajectory, and it is true of course that the countries were originally brought together to prevent further warfare. It is also true, that for years the European peace has long been kept by Nato and the military might of the United States of America.

This not to say that there are no reasonable and good grounds to be concerned about leaving the EU. There are. It is sensible to worry about shocks to prosperity and how they can be handled. It is admirable to feel genuine internationalist concern about the impact of such a decision on those people who would appreciate the assistance of the UK within the EU, and may feel that ‘Europe is the less’ if the UK ‘clod be washed away’.

There are many other grounds that are very much less convincing. If we leave the EU, it is said, the UK as a nation will become isolated, inward-looking, culturally impoverished. Is it seriously supposed that we depend upon our MEPs (hardly anybody can even name one) and the Council of Ministers to entice us to visit other European countries, to enjoy their art and architecture, to listen to their music, to keep in touch with family and friends there, to attend academic conferences and organise exchange programmes, to drink and think with them all? I fear that even the influence in the UK of Monsieur Foucault will comfortably survive a Brexit. I am sure that we will still be permitted alongside Turkey and Switzerland, to field a team in the UEFA champions league, if we qualify. Would we really trade a better grip on our democratic liberties for the convenience of shorter airport visa queues, an Erasmus programme or the whole mess of pottage in Brussels?

If we leave the EU, it said, it will be the occasion of a more right wing government at home. This argument represents perhaps the nadir of the whole sorry history of lesser-evilism. The role of the the left is now reduced to arguing that it should prefer David and George to Boris and Michael. Comrade, which side of the Tory cabinet are you on? In truth, there is not even the proverbial cigarette paper between them, and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has, predictably, fallen into line behind. The sorry state of contemporary democracy can only be energised by a modest improvement to its relationship with the people who actually vote in it. There will be no move to the right, if we argue and organise against a move to the right. Are we to leave the task to Jean-Claude Juncker?

If we leave the EU, it is said, we will lose the benefit of progressive laws especially with regard to workers’ rights. It should first be noted that EU labour law is by no means as progressive as some people seem to assume. That much is evident from the rulings of the European Court of Justice in December 2007 in International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line APB and Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet which held that the right of trade unions to take industrial action could be subjected to certain restrictions in accordance with the principle of proportionality, and specifically decided that industrial action in a member state to obtain pay increases exceeding the level of protection guaranteed by the EU Posted Workers Directive, where there are no clearly defined national law requirements in that member state for such an increase, could not be justified. That is a serious blow to free trade unionism.

Moreover, the assumption that there will be a bonfire of workers’ rights if Brexit occurs is ill founded. A senior UK barrister produced a 66 page briefing on the issue, and concludes with the scary observation that post–Brexit ‘most fundamentally, a future Government could simply reverse rulings it did not like’. It is telling that the author suggests that it is the government as opposed to parliament that reverses rulings. Government is used as short-hand, because parliament is assumed to be the plaything of government. That rests upon another assumption, that there is nothing that parliament or the public or the trade unions or the workers could do about it. We should remember that in 1972 the trade unions successfully defied the National Industrial Relations Court, and in 1974 they brought down the government.

The careless comment concluding that briefing says a great deal not just about the attitude of a lawyer to social change, but about the loss of morale and confidence in society about our ability to have any impact upon our government. This is why democracy and the attitude of freedom matter so much in this referendum. We should recall that some progress was actually made in this country before 1973. Under pressure from the people, and only under that pressure, it was parliament that brought forth factory acts, social insurance legislation, a national health service, free education for all, laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or sex – and all before the UK joined the EEC. How did we manage? We might add that it was parliament that in 1998 brought in the national minimum wage, the envy of workers in the rest of Europe today.

It is said that Brexit will bring racists and fascism to our streets, and create a harsher, nastier culture. It won’t if we don’t allow it to happen. The fortunate truth is that there is no sign at present of a resurgence of neo-fascism. There is however loose and dangerous talk about people being racists and fascists. People who favour Brexit are being branded racists for no good reason at all.

A poll prepared by ICM Limited for the period 10th – 13th June 2016 found that of persons categorised as C1 class, 48% were for Remain, and 39% for leave. Of those categorised as C2 class, 27% were for Remain, and 61% for Leave. The class divide revealed here in voting intentions reflects the judgement of the relatively worse off that they have little stake in the EU, and that is true in both economic and political terms. The EU has contributed to the stagnation of wages, austerity in public services and the transformation of communities without consultation. The attempt to silence these people by demonising them has been the most unattractive aspect of the referendum campaign, and it has deep roots.

Actually, with a bit of luck Brexit will bring a more tolerant, liberal and enlightened society. People may be able to express their real concerns about the impact of immigration on the jobs and pay that they would like to obtain, without being derided as racists, xenophobes and neo-fascists. People may even be able to disagree with the EU and the Guardian without being described as a ‘horde of Goths’.

It is shameful that all the major parties were opposed to holding a referendum on important changes in the way we are governed. That approach expressed the contempt they felt for the worth and the intelligence of ordinary people. For the major parties those people weren’t good enough to understand, they couldn’t be trusted, they would come to the ‘wrong’ conclusions. Democracy was not for them. It is a sobering thought that without the steady rise of UKIP David Cameron would never have promised a referendum in January 2103.

Nevertheless, against expectations and despite scare-mongering by the leadership of both main camps, the debate has actually turned into a real, lively, healthy engagement with the issues. We should keep that up. We should vote Leave. There will be risks, but that is the radical option. We will not fully restore respect for democracy or the spirit of freedom overnight, but we will have made a new start, and we will not prevail without them.

John Fitzpatrick
Professor of Law
Director of the Kent Law Clinic

Written by anubis

June 23rd, 2016 at 11:35 am

EU membership referendum vote

without comments

VoteLeave

The €uro is the weapon of mass destruction that is causing Europe-wide economic ills. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will never be Germany, so the ‘needed’ internal deflationary adjustments will never occur in these economies as long as the €uro is their currency. Look at recent bank stock price falls for what is going on in the eurozone banking sector. Eventually (already happening actually) the resulting economic hardship will lead to violence.

There will never be ‘reform’ of the EU since its entire purpose is the opposite of the suggested aims of those who claim they would reform it. It is a political project to establish and strengthen an oligarchic dictatorship, free from interference by the ‘demos’, and this is being pursued regardless of the economic effects of its policies which, empirically undeniably, are failing.

So this is the only remedy that all sane people should follow, whether motivated by economic, political or constitutional considerations.

A #Brexit #VoteLeave is a vote for the good of Europe. A #Brexit vote will be the first step in freeing all peoples of the continent of Europe from the vile, anti-democratic crony fascism that is the EU.

When we leave, the resulting collapse of the €uro will free Europe (especially the south) from the €uro derived shackles of economic stagnation and will restart progress in the direction of cooperative economic and social well-being shared by free peoples….(Note plural).

Written by anubis

May 30th, 2016 at 7:36 am

Court Procedure

without comments

VERONICA’S MESSAGE:
From Ray:
Here is a trick I have learned over the years that REALLY spoils the Maggot’s day … in CT matters.

Under normal circumstances, in any normal court, you would use a form N244 to ‘file an application’, however when you try and do this in a CT case, the clerks office gets all bent out of shape .. and tells you that you have to “apply to council”.

Thereafter a stiff email to the court TELLING them that “the COUNCIL have no lawful authority to consider an application to the court” … and a demand to know “If the CT hearing is actually being held IN a court” [Back to the question “Is it a court?”! – Veronica] … generally results in some rapid backtracking by the clerk’s office … who will then generally email back and tell you they have ‘considered the matter “administratively”‘ and granted the application will be heard in court.

And this is where it gets good …

On the N244 form (which I always send regardless of whether they will use it or not) has a question on it that goes like this …

“What level of Judge do you require?”

I always put

“District Judge, Recorder or Higher”

What this then means is that THEY LAWFULLY have to provide you with THAT level of Judge. If they do not then they have committed the FATAL offence of denying you the right to Justice (drum roll perleese while I roll out the ECHRA so you can read it dear members of the bench!) followed by a swift statement: “Then this hearing is in direct breach of the ECHRA which the UK has ratified and I demand now that this matter be suspended whilst I deal with this more serious matter”

Normally they panic and ‘out of nowhere’ a Circuit Judge of the correct level will be found …

However I never take these things at face value and I ALWAYS ask ..

“Sir, for the record, who and what might you be today” (its a VERY loaded question).

If he is a ‘proper’ judge, then he will generally give at the very least his or her name, I then press for his position (QC, Recorder, etc).

At this point I initiate a short recess of 5 minutes so that I may step outside and verify that they are listed on the rolls so that I may know they are a true and impartial judge. Again they cannot deny you this right! I don’t ask them for a recess I simply state its going to happen and for the most part higher level judges are generally OK with you checking them out.

Now, once you are in front of a ‘DJ’, ‘Recorder’ or even a ‘QC’ if you’re lucky you’ve removed the ‘maggots’ from the picture .. and the Council’s bill for the day has now gone up consideradbly … because of who is sitting (and they have to pay his lunch bill). Furthermore I have found that these judges tend to be way fairer and way more appraised of the law (not the bollox) and in most cases where I have presented an argument I find them receptive to hearing it and I think I know why …

In the normal course of their days, these higher judges sit in the Crown Courts of the country hearing the most menial and shite cases all day long … with people in the dock that know nothing of what we know and I fear its a drudgery to some of them. Then we walk in with a an eye to the common law and a solid argument and they think “At last … some excitement, here’s someone who can put an argument that I can give my careful consideration to”. And that, my friends, is what higher judges love to do – they love to deliberate the law. [I guess it makes them feel important? – Veronica]

I have had some great responses from higher judges, in my battles with the Councils … such as …

District Judge Workman, Redhill Law Courts – I put in an application for set aside of a liability order fully prepared and expecting the Council to fight me, I was gutted when they did not .. but in the very same breath they asked the judge to hear an application for the liability order to be re-opened again immediately. At which point I stood up and aired my objection on the basis that due process required that the Council give me the courtesy of 14 days notice … as I did to them in order that I might have time to defend or rebut that application. DJ Workman adds this whilst peering over his glasses at the Council Solicitor: “Yes, thank you Ray, I am minded to agree with Ray here and find your application unfounded and ill-prepared and one might even argue vexatious to Ray, your application is denied!”

In Staines court before Recorder Greaves, I put it to the Judge that the Council have not conformed with the Procedures on Disclosure by delivering their bundle to me at 2pm the day prior to the hearing. I made an application before the judge for a 6 week adjournment. The Council had a barrister there and he argued that those rules did not apply for some reason I can’t remember .. and that I was being vexatious towards his client by not paying the Council Tax. Recorder Greaves responded: “Well Mr. Jerome, what you have to remember is that from time to time in this country, people like him (waves a hand in my direction) will stand up and challenge the tax rules and challenge them hard, and I can only think that that’s a good thing!”. Jerome’s face was a picture!! Gutted doesn’t even come close – case adjourned with management!

In Redhill Justice Centre (whatever that is) before Judge Stephens, We put the case forward that the Council has no lawful authority to carry out court functions. Jerome (again) stood up, clearly flustered that we had a copy of Wades on the table that we had just cited Case Authorties from … and broke out in a sweat (visibly) … and spent the next 40 mins trying convince the Judge that the law of agency applied. After he was done, Stephens leant back in his chair and said: “Hmmm, yes Mr. Jerome, I’ve listened carefully to your submission however I am here to tell you that it will be a cold day in hell before anyone this side of the bench will buy that argument!”. Laugh I … nearly died laughing!

So, use the application process against them to get past the maggots and have fun! I always viewed going to court as a days sport!

Written by anubis

May 28th, 2016 at 4:45 am

Referendum

without comments

AN UNLAWFUL REFERENDUM.

Very shortly, the British people will be voting in an unlawful referendum; unlawful because our national sovereignty is the birth right of generations yet unborn, just as it was ours and therefore not in the gift of any one generation to decide whether or not they wish to return to being a free sovereign people of self political determination, or remain a satellite state subordinate to the German based European political empire.

The majority will be so doing without the slightest understanding of the issues involved and the consequences and potential perils of their actions. The situation now is similar to the situation that existed in 1972, when the then Conservative government, acting without mandate or regard for due lawful procedure, took the nation into what was then “The Common Market” or European Economic Community, while hiding from the people the factual implications of the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome.

In order to facilitate that 1972 act of treachery, the people were led to believe that the issue was one of economics and that national sovereignty would not be affected. Today’s Conservative government is peddling virtually the same dishonest and deceitful lies, and they are now simply smothering the issue of national sovereignty with a great play on the claimed but totally hypothetical advantages of being permanently subordinate to an unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic foreign political power, which has come to replace the pure common market (now the European Economic Area – the free trade zone which is totally separate from the political union that is the EU).

Most importantly, the essential issue of this coming referendum is not about politics or economics, it is about national sovereignty and freedom, the most highly valued thing known to man and for which mankind has time and again been prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend and secure.

Little wonder the people are divided on the issue, which is one of utter confusion as it was deliberately planned so to be. Also as planned, if the people were to be informed of the truth behind our present unlawful governance it would doubtless be met with utter disbelief, for such circumstances are expected to be found in third world countries, not in the land of Christian principles and honest integrity, presided over by a contractually bound sovereign monarch and the mother of all Parliaments. The sad truth is that in 1972 a parliamentary political coup by the Conservative party deposed the office of the monarch, dismissed the people’s common law constitution and surrendered the supremacy of the Crown, together with the people’s law and the nation’s sovereignty to a foreign political power.

As things presently stand, the economies of the world are in a state of flux which does not make for any form of monetary or political stability. The EU is no exception (worse in fact due to fascistic legal processes and endless EU regulation), yet our politicians, large corporates and a number of very wealthy international speculators are attempting to persuade us to dispense with a thousand years of constitutional stability by placing ourselves permanently under the dictate of unelected foreign bureaucrats whose nations’ histories have never experienced democracy as we understand it; and all in the pursuit of the possibility of financial gain.

Important though the issues of trade and investment are, man does not live by bread alone, there are other important aspects and issues that are essential to social cohesion and political stability, such as principle, integrity, truth, transparency and fairness; our ancient word ‘fair’, which summarises all that we are as a people, has no equivalent in any other language. It is these social assets we have in our national disposition and from which our democracy is sustained and gives lead and example to the civilised world, a far greater value than the handful of silver for which our politicians would sell our lawful rights and freedoms.

For the past half century the British people have been deceived, lied to and denied the truth of their inalienable common law rights and liberties. Before 1972 we had a thousand year old written common law constitution that summarised, represented, expressed and upheld all that we were as a nation state and upon which our system of law was based. Under the terms, principles and demands of the Treaty of Rome, this had to be ignored, buried, forgotten and banished from the nation’s education curricula, it being the antitheses of the “Code Napoleon” on which European law is based, not least on such issues as the presumption of innocence and trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury.

Not surprisingly, very few people, including politicians, understand what the Treaty of Rome is all about. The principle and objectives of the Treaty of Rome, which is based on the German High Command document Europaisch Whitshaftsgemeinshaft 1942, is to realise the planned destruction of the nation states of Europe by the eradication of the principle of national sovereignty. Prior to the Conservative government signing up to the Treaty of Rome in 1972 there was deceitful and misleading propaganda proffered by that government that we would not be losing but would be sharing our sovereignty, despite sovereignty being absolute and indivisible. In reality, our national sovereignty was surrendered and replaced by the political sovereignty of the EEC. Before the surrender we were a constitutional monarchy, this was ended, along with the monarchy, for there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for a constitutional monarchy.

Clearly, the monarch had either abdicated or been treasonously deposed, as there can be no sovereign monarch in a country that is no longer sovereign. Under the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the monarch was also the official Governor of the nation, with extensive powers of governance, as vested in the monarch by the people, at the time of the Coronation. The government of the day was no more than a delegated authority, with no powers of its own, its only powers being those loaned to it by the people for its temporary duration, and was mounted by the monarch on the people’s behalf for a strictly limited period. The power of governance remained with the monarch and through the monarch to the people, the monarch and the people being as one, as established and proclaimed in a marriage as part of the coronation ceremony. In summary, before 1972, this nation was not about Parliament and the people, it was about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporarily appointed national administration and legislature; a national servant.

With the unlawful dissolution of the monarchy and the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown in accord with the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, Parliament, which formerly drew its legitimacy from the Crown, became an illegitimate and therefore unlawful assembly and has remained so since 1972. The abdication of the monarch was later officially confirmed when following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, again by a Conservative government, the then Conservative prime minister John Major announced in the House of Commons that all British people had been officially made citizens of the EU including the Queen, the implication being that all, including the Queen were bound by the demands, obligations and restrictions of that foreign citizenship. Had John Major not been correct he would have been ‘imagining the death of the monarch’ and so subject to charges of Treason under the Treason Felony Act 1848, but no action was taken against him. Also, clearly, no one could be both monarch and citizen at the same time. By his statement, John Major was also making sure that everyone fully understood that they were NO LONGER BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Unlawful though this coming referendum is, as it invites the British people to engage in an act of treason against themselves, it could at least give expression to those wishing to return to being British subjects and once more under lawful governance.

To those who will be voting.

If you wish to return to being a British subject.

If you wish to have the Crown and the monarchy reinstated.

If you wish to return to lawful governance and the rule of law administered through a legitimate national parliament.

If you wish to see a return to the lawful recognition of our ancient common law Constitution.

If you wish to ensure your descendants grow up and live in a free and sovereign country of self political determination, there is only one way to vote and that is, for this nation to leave the politically chaotic and financially corrupt European Union.

Do so with a will and be mindful of the hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants surreptitiously brought here to vote against you, and the hundreds of thousands of those born here of foreign immigrants who have no historic affinity with this country, be it politically or spiritually. Digest the facts that are hereby laid out and check them out for yourself, should you have a mind to, and should you be of a spiritual belief, pray that the sword of truth and enlightenment does ultimately prevail.

Bob Lomas.

Written by anubis

May 14th, 2016 at 7:27 am

Illegality of UK’s membership of the EU

without comments

Sovereignty – The ability to rule ourselves and make our own laws.

The Lord Kilmuir letter, below, was sent to Edward Heath advising him that joining the European Economic Community would be contrary to English Constitutional Law. It would be a total abrogation of his duty to govern us according to our laws and customs.

Heath went ahead anyway and in 1972 gave away Britain’s sovereignty in the most grievous act of treason in British history. Diligently pursuing his treachery, every following parliament has been an unlawful assembly unqualified to legally govern. This means that every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 is null and void as treason has no authority in law.

The comments in red interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was fully prepared to commit acts of Sedition and Treason in order to take the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir.

My Dear Ted,

You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.

He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:-

(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John, he held it only in trust for those who followed him. The money that the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the money legitimately owed.

Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-

a) Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;

b) The Crown would be called upon to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;

The English Constitution confers treaty making powers on only the Sovereign. The Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament because they are mere servants of the Monarch. Sovereignty itself cannot be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on to any successor as it was received.

c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.

It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.

The position of Parliament:

It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.

There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-

It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act, the 1351 Act of Praemunire (which was introduced by King Edward III because he believed it was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power, to have any of his subjects to be taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope), the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.

A parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada. In this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.

No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, an act of treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

It would in theory, be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable. We should therefore have to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.

There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire and treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Regarding Treaty-making powers:

The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.

There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.

Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.

This is a surrender of our Sovereignty, a clear act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, it is treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Independence of the Courts

There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ — to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.

Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on.

Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.

It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.

Written by anubis

May 9th, 2016 at 12:39 pm

Why we should leave the EU

without comments

Could Britain survive outside the EU?

There has for years now been a cynical and ruthless propaganda campaign to persuade us that Britain has no future outside Europe. This is nonsense. For example, take Switzerland, they ignored the encouragement of their Government and voted against joining the EU. But they have negotiated for themselves an excellent trade agreement – thereby putting a lie to the utterly false claim that no European country can possibly survive unless it becomes part of the EU.

The europhiles constantly argue that Britain would be ruined if she left Europe.

Oh, what porkies these people do tell.

As The Economist said recently: `…the idea that leaving (the EU) would be `economic suicide’ is nonsense’.

Examine what would happen if Britain pulled up the Tunnel and stopped paying subs to the big EU in Brussels.

1. The EU would impose its external tariff on British exports to Europe. This would make very little difference to British companies – most of whose exports go outside Europe anyway. The World Trade Organisation restricts the EU to an external tariff of around 6% so the effect would, in any case, be quite small. (Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate for itself a smaller tariff – in the way that Switzerland has. This would drive down the cost of leaving the EU still further.)

2. If outside the EU, Britain would, inevitably, be outside the euro. There would be an exchange rate between the pound and the euro. In the long run this could well be to Britain’s advantage.

3. The external tariff on Britain’s imports from outside the EU would disappear. Britain would probably gain more from this than it would lose from the imposition of a tariff on British exports to Europe.

4. A Britain outside the EU would be able to make special trading deals with other countries – such as those in the Commonwealth. This could be hugely advantageous.

5. Europhiles claim that if Britain left the EU then countries from outside Europe (such as Japan and America) would invest less. This is nonsense. Britain attracts more outside investment (known to economists as `Foreign Direct Investment’) than other European countries because its labour market is still relatively unregulated. If it was outside the EU Britain could take advantage of its independence to reduce the number of regulations limiting foreign companies. EU regulations are already regarded as a minefield. Just ask some of the foreign companies who have had eurocrats leaping up and down all over them. Many would jump at the chance to invest in a less regulated part of Europe. The tariffs would be a small price to pay. Finally, even if FDI did fall, Britain would not necessarily lose since in an often irrational attempt to encourage foreign businesses (at the expense of British businesses) the British Government subsidises these investments. A subsidised outside investment may well not make money for the country!

The bottom line is that the British stand to lose nothing by leaving the EU.

If Britain left the EU it would leave behind an incompetent and power hungry bureaucracy which has consistently failed. If we left the EU they would not be able to do anything in revenge. Remember we have a trade deficit with the EU. (For example, we have a deficit of over £3 billion a year trade with Germany alone.) The EU countries desperately need our trade.

British politicians have supported the EU, lied and deceived the British voters and signed away rights and freedoms and they have claimed that they wanted Britain to have influence in Europe.

This is nonsense.

Britain has far less influence in Europe than it had ten, twenty or thirty years ago.

Politicians have sold out the voters to gain personal political influence.

Britain, and the British, have gained nothing from membership of the EU. But membership has cost a great deal.

Britain would survive and survive well outside the EU.

The people of Norway and Switzerland have voted against joining the EU – and have thrived. Greenland, once in the EU, escaped and has prospered since getting out. If they can do it so can Britain.

Britain would survive and prosper outside the EU. It would be richer and more powerful – and its citizens would regain their lost independence.

Britain’s trade is in surplus with every state in the world except the EU. If Britain left the EU it could regain power of its legal system, armed forces, and agricultural policies. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses would be saved from stifling bureaucracy. British is the worlds leading business language. British dominates the Internet. Our language means that we can trade with any other country in the world.
David Cameron won’t tell you this but Britain would be much richer if it left the EU. We would save a fortune. And be free of 30,000 rules.

The only people who would lose would be the politicians for whom the British stage is too small.

We could leave the EU in minutes. All we have to do is recall our ambassador to the EU.

(Did you know we had one? How, you might ask, can we have an ambassador to something we are supposed to be part of?) Withdrawing our ambassador would invalidate all treaties between Britain and the EU.

Or Parliament could simply repeal the Acts of Parliament which hold us to the EU.

Simple.

We could be out of the EU in minutes.

Written by anubis

February 20th, 2016 at 5:07 pm

Glastonbury Town Hall takeover

without comments

A group of people have taken over the Glastonbury Town Hall under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215. They have been in touch with the Duke of Rutland who is the senior peer on the ‘Barons Committee’. It was this committee that took a petition to Buckingham Palace in 2001 asking the Queen to do her job and restore the rule of law. The Committee were refused entry.

The Glastonbury local authority asked the police to move the people out of the town hall. When the police arrived it was explained to them that they were enforcing the law under Magna Carta 1215 Article 61 with the approval of the Duke of Rutland and the Barons Committee. The police then backed-off without removing anyone from the town hall.

This group, who took over the town hall, are asking that everyone in the country take over their own local town hall using the same law which is shown below. Anyone doing this will have the blessing of the Barons Committee and need only to quote the above explanation. This action is 100% legal.

From Albert Burgess

Article 61.
61. Since, moreover, we have conceded all the above things (from reverence) for God, for the reform of our kingdom and the better quieting of the discord that has sprung up between us and our barons, and since we wish these things to flourish unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we constitute and concede to them the following guarantee:- namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and secure the observance of the peace and rights which we have conceded and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours; in this manner, that if we or our chief Justiciar or our bailiffs or any of our servants in any way do wrong to anyone, or transgress any of the articles of peace or security, and the wrong doing has been demonstrated to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us or our chief Justiciar, (if we are out of the kingdom), and laying before us the grievance, shall ask that we will have it redressed without delay. And if we, or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom) do not redress the grievance within forty days of the time when it was brought to the notice of us or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom), the aforesaid four barons shall refer the case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons with the whole community of the land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely by taking of castles, estates and possessions, and in such other ways as they can, excepting (attack on) our person and those of our queen and of our children until, in their judgement, satisfaction has been secured; and when satisfaction has been secured let them behave towards us as they did before. And let anyone in the country who wishes to do so take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons in the execution of all the aforesaid matters and with them to oppress us to the best of his ability, and we publicly and freely give permission for the taking the oath to anyone who wishes to take it, and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.

Written by anubis

October 16th, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Natural Law

without comments

“The issue the politicians and bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices in those areas. (…) Since the freedom of speech, the development of personality, the right to worship or not to worship, the right to use technologically contemporary means for self-defence, the right to be left alone, and the right to own and use property all stem from our humanity, the government simply is without authority to regulate human behavior in these areas, no matter what powers it purports to give to itself and no matter what crises may occur. Among the rights in this category is the freedom of movement, which today is called the right to travel.” – Andrew P. Napolitano, Former US Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey (1)

Written by anubis

August 12th, 2014 at 9:23 pm