MAGIC CIRCLE OF HOMOSEXUAL JUDGES AND LAWYERS

JUDGE IN $67m LAW SUIT AFTER NAKED PICS OF HER APPEAR ONLINE

Judge in $67m law suit after naked pics of her are posted online - and husband asks man to have sex with her A female judge has stepped down from the bench after shocking x-rated photos of her were posted online - and her lawyer husband tried to get a client to have sex with her. Lori Douglas, an associate chief justice in a Canadian court, was in naked photographs posted on an adult website in which she reportedly posed with sex toys and even engaged in oral sex acts. And her husband, divorce lawyer Jack King, has admitted trying to persuade a client to have sex with his wife - saying it was purely because she wanted interracial sex. The sex scandal has led to an explosive $67 million lawsuit and has rocked the legal system in Winnipeg, Canada. Mr King has admitted posting the explicit photographs and asking the client to have sex with his wife - but insists she did not know he was doing it. King stepped down from the firm where he is a partner and also said he had taken leave because of depression over the scandal. Now his wife, the associate chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Family Division, has also stepped down from active duty as the lawsuit goes through the courts. 'In the interests of the judiciary and of the Court, Associate Chief Justice Douglas has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting judge of the Court of Queen's Bench and will remain in her position in an administrative capacity until the pending complaint before the Canadian Judicial Council has been dealt with by that organization,' Chief Justice Marc Monnin said in a statement. The scandal started when King represented computer programmer Alexander Chapman in his ongoing divorce case. Chapman says his attorney then sent him explicit photographs of his wife, as well as links to where they were posted on the adult website www.darkcavern.com in an ad seeking black or Hispanic men for sex. 'I wanted to puke,' Chapman insists. "They were disgusting. felt sick because I couldn't believe my lawyer was saying this to me.' Chapman insists King spent numerous weeks trying to lure him into having sex with his wife. He claims he met the couple - but never took it any further. 'As a black guy I'm really sad that he looked at me as a sex object,' he said. Chapman says as soon as his divorce was finalised he told King's law firm - Thompson Dorfman Sweatman - and was paid $25,000 by King. King says he was depressed at the time and thought their discussions about sex - which he admits was discussed often - was mutual. He also insists it happened after the divorce was finalized and did not effect their professional relationship. He also insists it was an isolated incident - and that his wife had no idea he was asking men to have sex with her or even that he was posting the lurid photos online. Chapman has filed three separate lawsuits at Winnipeg Law Courts. He is seeking $10 million from King, $7 million from Douglas and $50 million from Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, which is the law firm where both King and Douglas used to work. He is claiming 'assault, harassment, misfeasance in public office, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.' None of the allegations has been proven in court and the parties have one month to file a statement of defence. King's lawyer, Bill Gange, accuses Chapman of trying to extort the couple, stressing that when he was paid $25,000 he also signed documents promising to never speak publicly about it and also destroy all photos he was sent. 'This is disgusting. It's a horror show,' he said. Gange admitted King 'shouldn't have talked to him the way he did' but said his client has already paid a heavy price through the financial settlement and taking a year away from his practice. He said King was suffering through a major depression in 2003 and never told his wife he had asked Chapman to have sex with her or that he had shown her private pictures to him and posted them online. He said King and Chapman had a friendly relationship at the time, which included plenty of sexual talk and bravado from both men. Gange also accused Chapman of attempting to 'extort' as much as $100,000 from King before agreeing to the lesser amount. 'I only recommended it to protect Lori, and his son. He was succumbing to the blackmail,' said Gange. 'He did something stupid and out of character, but it was not illegal, and it was never acted upon." He also stressed that the x-rated photographs were taken when Douglas was still a layer at her husband's firm, and not yet a judge. 'Isn't this just wonderful titillation,' Gange said sarcastically. 'People are going to be sitting around and saying, 'Oh my, look what a judge did.' Well, this was done in their private lives.' Douglas was a partner at Thompson Dorfman Sweatman until she was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2005. King and Douglas have declined to comment. SOURCE Chief Family Court Judge on Bondage Website

PRIVACY LAW TO STOP RISE IN GAGGING ORDERS BY JUDGES

Britain could get its first ever privacy law to stop judges creating one by stealth through the courts, a justice minister said. Injunctions and super-injunctions have been used by sportsmen such as golfers Colin Montgomerie (above) and Tiger Woods Photo: GETTY IMAGES In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Lord McNally suggested that the right to privacy could be enshrined in law after a number of celebrities were awarded so-called “super-injunctions” to gag the press. But campaigners for freedom of speech will fear that any new privacy law could frustrate investigations by journalists that are clearly in the public interest, such as The Daily Telegraph’s inquiry last year into MPs’ expenses. Lord McNally, a Liberal Democrat minister in the Ministry of Justice, was speaking after a spate of gagging orders on the press — which have been criticised in some cases for protecting the wealthy — were ordered by the courts. Injunctions and super-injunctions — so called because even their existence cannot be reported — have been used by sportsmen such as golfers Colin Montgomerie and Tiger Woods, and John Terry, the former England football captain, to protect their privacy. Last Friday, a leading Premier League footballer won a High Court injunction to prevent the publication of claims about his private life. Lord McNally said: “There has been a general consensus that a new piece of legislation that clarifies, consolidates and removes some of the more dangerous aspects of the way case law has grown up is something that is desirable.” The Coalition last month announced a consultation on a new defamation bill, claiming that the courts were restricting freedom of expression. The Bill would cover the growth in “no win, no fee” libel cases and build on an existing private members’ bill on libel law reform that was presented to the House of Lords in May by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a Lib Dem peer. However, Lord McNally suggested in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that the new legislation would go further, in effect creating a privacy law. He conceded that there were concerns that a privacy law had been created through successive rulings by judges. Some, such as Mr Justice Eady, have been heavily criticised. Lord McNally said: “There was a danger that we were getting towards having privacy law by judicial decision. If we are going to have a privacy law it should be openly debated and freely decided by Parliament.” The number of injunctions, in which a court orders a newspaper not to publish a story, has risen since the 1998 Human Rights Act. Lord McNally said that the newer “super-injunction” was “something that has caused concern and is something that will be dealt with”. The Master of the Rolls, the most senior civil court judge in England and Wales, has set up a committee to examine the use of super-injunctions and other injunctions which impact on press freedom. Lord McNally said super-injunctions were “something that has grown up by stealth, rather than by considered desire of Parliament and therefore they will be in the sights when they look at the reform of the law”. The new legislation would be a “consolidation” and “clarification” of the case law that will “hopefully remove some of the more onerous aspects of the way that case law has grown up”. The Government could set up a joint committee of both Houses to take evidence in public “which would get us the balance that is needed”, he said. Hearings could take place next year, and proposals form the basis of a new Bill in the Queen’s Speech next autumn. The legislation could be on the statute books by 2012, he said. Any new Bill would build on the work of Lord Lester, whose private members bill suggested that libel claimants will have to demonstrate “substantial harm” to their reputations if they want to sue successfully in the courts. Lord McNally said a privacy law would not go as far as in France, where the media is heavily restricted. “For us, the collected wisdom is that our law as it stands is slightly out of kilter, has encouraged a certain amount of libel tourism and does need an overhaul,” he said. SOURCE Applied Propaganda Techniques: The Language of Politics

EXPOSED: THE MASSIVE COST OF HOUSING JUDGES

The price of providing judges' accommodation in south Wales is criticised after figures showed it costs £417,000 annually. Plaid Cymru's Freedom of Information request revealed the figures for lodgings in Cardiff and Swansea. The party's, Chris Franks, said many would find it "totally unacceptable". However, justice officials said the issue of lodgings is kept under review, "ensuring that tax payers' money is spent effectively". But Plaid said there still remains a wide difference between the cost of judges' lodgings in south Wales compared to the accommodation bill for those attending courts in the Caernarfon area. We can't afford to be housing judges in expensive premises when good quality alternatives are available” Chris Franks, AM Plaid Cymru In Cardiff, the bill is £806 per night, while in Swansea the cost is £1,042 a night. Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS) own and maintain both the judges' properties in the cities, including employing at least five members of staff. However, in Caernarfon, judges must use hotels rather than specific HMCS accommodation, at the cost of around £440 a night. "Is there any justification for having premises in Cardiff and Swansea when hotel accommodation is used in Caernarfon?" asked Mr Franks. "We can't afford to be housing judges in expensive premises when good quality alternatives are available. The annual running costs of lodgings in Cardiff are a staggering £239,000 and £178,000 in Swansea. "Many people will find this spending totally unacceptable as they see their income at risk." 'Safe and secure' Following the freedom of information requests that revealed the cost of judges accommodation in south Wales, Mr Franks has now called on HMCS to investigate cheaper options in Cardiff and Swansea. Responding to the comments from Plaid Cymru, a spokesperson for the HMCS said: "The most serious and complex cases, both criminal and civil, are heard by High Court Judges in courts near to where the events took place and in a place most convenient to parties and witnesses. "High Court Judges are based in London and need accommodation, often for long periods of time, when they hear cases outside London. "HMCS keeps under review whether these lodgings effectively provide the High Court Judges with a safe, secure and suitable environment, giving them the privacy to work on cases and judgements while ensuring that taxpayers' money is spent effectively." SOURCE

THE COURTS ARE OPEN BUT JUSTICE IS A CLOSED BOOK

The courts are open but justice is a closed book We are denied even the barest details of what goes on in supposedly public legal proceedings. Last week I had an encounter with open justice. I was attending the Information Tribunal hearing of a friend who is trying to peel back layers of secrecy surrounding allegations that the Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust had a history of silencing whistleblowing staff by offering them public money to sign confidentiality or ‘gagging’ contracts. I’ve been to the Tribunal before when I was fighting for the release of MPs’ expenses and that’s when I discovered the only record of proceedings of this so-called “open” people’s court (the Tribunals are meant to be a less formal, more accessible form of justice) were my scribbled notes. When it came time to write a script for a dramatised version of the hearing my notes and those of other reporters were all we had to go on. I’d asked at the time if I could tape record the hearing and was told “no”. This time I decided to press harder. The rhetoric of the English legal system is that justice must be seen to be done so why are the public forbidden – under threat of jail – from recording a verbatim account of proceedings? Not only that, rules are so opaque and obscure that court reporters struggle to report cases with any degree of accuracy or depth. And that is when there is a reporter in court, which these days is a rarity – there used to be 25 reporters covering national courts for the Press Association; by 2009 there were only four. We are paying nearly £1.5 billion for the court service plus £2.1billion for legal aid and the salaries of nearly 1000 senior judicial officers. It’s a high price, but to be honest not enough to adequately fund the system. However, if we’re going to invest in the judiciary it’s vital we understand where our money is going and receive some benefit for our considerable contribution. The least we might have is an account of proceedings held in open court. Anisa Dhanji, the judge, said she was concerned with the hearing being recorded. ‘Usually such requests are made in advance so the tribunal can maintain the necessary degree of control over the transcript.’ “Control” is exactly what a court shouldn’t be exerting. Once it is decided that it is open, there should be no restriction on how that open hearing is processed. She went on to say that she’d allow me to record now but I’d have to wait for a future ruling before I could “use” the recording. The next day in court the Judge announced she’d made her ruling. “Please turn your tape recorder off,” she said, looking sternly at me over her glasses. I did so. ‘I have made my ruling. As you will no doubt be aware it is a Contempt of Court under section 9 to make any kind of recording for any purpose including with a view to publication or transcription. It is for the court alone to decide if a recording takes place and the court must have control of the recording. To do otherwise is fraught with difficulty. Firstly there is a risk of manipulation. Secondly it puts at a disadvantage other parties. Any recording you have made thus far must be deleted and cannot be used in any way including transcription.’ At least that’s the gist of what she said because here’s the final irony: When I asked if I could have a copy of her ruling she said there was no written record of it. To close a court, effectively, from public scrutiny in a ruling of which there is no record strikes me as something straight out of Kafka. The simple answer is to allow tape recorders for all: no party is disadvantaged and an ‘official’ recording is there for checking. This is how it works in other countries. But this is to ignore the root objection of the courts: that they are losing control of how court proceedings are presented to the public. The courts’ refusal to allow people to tape-record benefit a few private companies whom the court approves in cosy deals. These people have exclusive right to tape record or listen to official recordings. The cost to the individual of hiring them is about £150– 250 per hour of typing and even before the transcription process begins, you must sign a form stating you will pay whatever amount the company decides. You could be out tens of thousand of pounds and there’s no way to challenge the bill as only the company is allowed access to the raw tapes. Many trials in the upper courts are now officially recorded (and in the case of the new UK Supreme Court, filmed) yet these records are not accessible to the public. All High Court hearings have been digitally recorded since February 2010 and sit in a basement in the Royal Courts of Justice. When I spoke to the court’s governance officer he told me there were no plans to make these accessible directly to the public. Why not? I could go on. You might like to know whether the builder you’re going to give your keys to has any convictions for theft or if the company you’re about to do business with has a report for fraud. Tough. This information is not a click of a button away. Instead you’ll have to know the details of the case before you can call up any records – even though it’s the existence of cases that you’re trying to find in the first place. It’s Catch-22. If you do know the details of the case you’re then forced to undergo a tortuous and tedious process which involves battling a raft of petty officials across a number of court offices all for the simple purpose of accessing information that is supposedly public. There are three main things that would make the courts useful to the general public: (a) knowing by name who is using them (the court list); (b) why (the particulars of claim); (c) the result (the verdict, sentence or settlement). Yet trying to get any, let alone all, of these is fraught with difficulty. We have a justice system paid for by the common people but whose proceedings are available only to the rich, powerful, or privileged. Let’s not pretend this is justice for all. SOURCE

JUDGE QUITS AFTER RENT BOY SCANDAL

THESE ARE THE CROOKED PERVERTS RUNNING BRITISH COURTS. PRICE IS ONLY ONE OF MANY WHO ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER. A CIRCUIT judge who faced newspaper allegations of an affair with a rent boy has quit his post. Judge Gerald Price QC, 61, of Cowbridge, hit the headlines last summer over claims he had a nine-month fling with Christopher Williams, 26, a male prostitute he met via the internet. The judge, who presided over trials in Cardiff Crown Court, was said to have allowed Mr Williams to sit on the court bench with him as he sentenced criminals. The Office for Judicial Complaints has confirmed Mr Price’s resignation. An inquiry recommended he should be sacked as a result of his conduct but he resigned after a failed appeal and before he could be dismissed. According to a story in the News of the World last June, the married judge set Mr Williams up in a flat in Swansea and paid him £420 a month for what he described as a “sex season ticket”. Mr Williams claims Mr Price contacted him via email and that they met and had sex in a room at the Days Inn hotel in the M4 Sarn Park services. Subsequently, they met at Mr Price’s second home near Carmarthen. Mr Williams told the News of the World: “I sat on the bench next to Gerald for at least five days in Cardiff, three in Swansea and once in Carmarthen. Security knew who I was and I was never stopped or hindered. Gerald passed me off as a law student. “I was also in his private chambers behind the courtroom. That’s where I caught sight of a lot of court files and criminal records – stuff only the judge and counsel should see.” A former three-time Conservative parliamentary candidate, Mr Price became an Anglican lay preacher in 1969. Mr Price presided over many prominent cases. He was the judge who made an order to seize every penny owned by brothel madam Julie Hyett, a policeman’s wife from Pembrey, and gave her a 15-month suspended jail term. Mr Price has refused to discuss the matter with the media, saying his privacy is being invaded and insisting through his lawyers that there is no public interest in the matter. A spokeswoman for the Office for Judicial Complaints said: “Gerald Price QC, a Circuit Judge who was appointed to the Wales Circuit in 2000, has resigned from judicial office following an investigation into allegations about his conduct originally published in the media in June 2009. “While the media reported a number of allegations against Judge Price, the judicial investigation only focused on those that had an impact on his role as a judge. The investigation found that his actions brought the judiciary into disrepute, rendering his position untenable. “In the light of the investigation, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice informed the judge in December 2009 that they considered his behaviour merited removal from office. “In accordance with the judicial discipline regulations, Judge Price was entitled to ask for their decision to be reviewed by a Review Body panel. He did so and the panel was chaired by Lady Justice Smith. The panel agreed with the original decision of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor and recommended that Judge Price should be removed from office. The judge has, however, resigned before the disciplinary process was formally concluded. His resignation took effect from June 30, 2010.” The spokeswoman said the panel’s report would not be disclosed as it was considered confidential to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. Mr Price remains a QC, but is not listed in the public directory of practising barristers maintained by the Bar Council, the regulatory body for barristers. When asked whether any action had been taken or was contemplated against Mr Price, a spokeswoman for the Bar Council would only say: “The Bar Council is unable to comment on individual cases.” Mr Price is married with two sons. The elder is in his late 20s and in the Army, based at the Ministry of Defence in London. The younger, in his mid-20s, is a graduate. The family home is in Cowbridge, although they are also believed to have a holiday home in the Balearic Islands. SOURCE Judge resigns after losing appeal over prostitute investigation

THOMAS SOWELL ON JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VIDEO

FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE

PROOF JUDGES CANNOT BE TRUSTED IN COURTS ONLY JURIES ARE IMPARTIAL VIDEO

FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE

MAN LUNGED AT JUDGE'S HEAD WITH A MEAT CLEAVER

A man armed with a meat cleaver allegedly threatened an employment tribunal chairman after losing a case. Eyewitnesses claimed Mohammed Choudhury lunged at 66-year-old Russell Hardwick with the blade, forcing him to protect himself with his arms at the Reading Employment Tribunal Centre on Friday. Barrister Andrew Burns said: ‘He just walked up to the judge and said something like, “You threw out my case.” Then he raised this meat cleaver before the judge’s head. ‘The judge cried out and tried to protect himself with his arms. I quickly went up to the man and asked him to hand it over. Amazingly, he complied.’ Mr Burns added: ‘It all happened in a matter of seconds. I then kept him talking for about ten minutes until the police arrived. ‘It was unreal at the time but afterwards we were all as white as sheets and it could so easily have turned out very differently.’ Trainee barrister Kate Balmer, 25, said that Mr Burns ‘probably saved the judge’s life’. She said: ‘Andrew Burns shouted at him, “What on Earth do you think you are doing?” The man looked at him and the judge managed to run out into his room and shut the door.’ Mr Choudhury, 42, a former library worker, of Wellesley Road, Slough, was charged with an offence under the Public Order Act. Visitors to the tribunal centre are not required to undergo searches or bag checks and Mr Burns said there had been calls for more security measures to be introduced. Mr Hardwick, a former solicitor, has been an employment tribunal chairman since 1990. He announced his retirement last May when he reached 65 but has still been hearing cases at Reading. SOURCE

TONY BLAIR'S WIFE CLEARED OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

TYRANNY WHEN JUDGES JUDGE JUDGES Cherie Booth QC has been cleared of allegations of judicial misconduct. Here's today's statement from the Office for Judicial Complaints. After receiving a number of complaints about comments reportedly made by Cherie Booth QC in her capacity as a Recorder, in connection with the trial of Shamso Miah, the Office for Judicial Complaints investigated the matter in accordance with the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended). That investigation has concluded and found that Recorder Booth's observations did not constitute judicial misconduct. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have considered the conclusions of the investigation and agree that no disciplinary action is necessary. It was reported in February that the former prime minister's wife told Miah that she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a "religious man". Miah, a devout Muslim, had been convicted of breaking a man's jaw with two punches after a dispute in a bank queue in East Ham, London. The 25-year-old had gone to the bank from a local mosque. Miss Booth appeared to indicate that she was taking into account Miah's religious beliefs as she opted for a lenient sentence. "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before," she told him at Inner London Crown Court. "You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour." The National Secular Society had lodged an official protest with the Office for Judicial Complaints, claiming that Miss Booth was effectively discriminating against atheists. SOURCE

MAN SUSPECTED OF SHOOTING DEAD JUDGE IN BRUSSELS COURTHOUSE

Belgium police say they have detained a suspect in the courthouse killing of a Brussels judge and her court clerk. The shooting took place yesterday in a Brussels courthouse and the gunman fled on foot, setting off a manhunt in the Belgian capital. Police said today that they had detained a man in a park after the shooting and recovered a weapon. They did not release details about his identity. The victims in Thursday's shooting were identified as Judge Isabelle Brandon and her clerk Andre Bellemans. They were shot at the end of a hearing and the gunman then fled from the courthouse. SOURCE

JUDGE CLEARED OF 2007 FLASHING QUIZZED OVER SEX ASSAULT ON SAME TRAIN ROUTE

THE BRITISH JUDICIARY GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER ONCE AGAIN A high court judge cleared three years ago of flashing on a commuter train has been quizzed by police over a sex attack on the same route. Sir Stephen Richards was arrested by British Transport Police for the suspected offence last September and stepped down from the bench while he was investigated. The alleged victim, a professional woman in her 30s, told officers that a grey-haired smartly-dressed man was rubbing himself against her in the train carriage and that she screamed out to tell him to stop. An analysis of CCTV footage found the man standing next to her in the carriage and appearing to resemble someone similar to the description of Sir Stephen, 59. The eminent judge - styled Lord Justice Richards when sitting in the Court of Appeal - was cleared of two offences of indecent exposure on a commuter train three years ago. The woman, a foreign national who cannot be named for legal reasons, had no knowledge of the earlier case as she was not living in Britain in 2007. She only realised her alleged attacker appeared to be Sir Stephen when a friend emailed her his picture from the internet. Detectives arrested Sir Stephen after he voluntarily went for questioning at a police station. British Transport Police officers were understood to be dismayed when the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the case. A CPS spokesman said: 'It was decided there was not a realistic prospect of conviction.' Sir Stephen, a father of three, was cleared of exposing his genitals through his suit trousers on two separate occasions while on trains between Waterloo and his £2.5million home in Wimbledon. At the weekend his wife Lucy said her husband was not at home and would be unlikely to comment. Sir Stephen sat on many high-profile cases, including one where he referred a decision to the House of Lords on whether to charge police officers who shot Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, mistaking him for a terror suspect. Educated at King's College School, Wimbledon, and St John's College, Oxford, the judge lists his hobbies in Who's Who as 'Walking, relaxing in the Welsh hills'. Sir Stephen caused a sensation during his 2007 trial at Bow Street Magistrates Court. In his defence, he held up a pair of black Calvin Klein underpants to show his preferred type of underwear - differing from that described by his alleged victim, a City worker in her 20s. She claimed Sir Stephen flashed at her on two occasions. Chief magistrate Timothy Workman, sitting with two lay magistrates, said the alleged victim gave 'clear, dignified and truthful' evidence. But Mr Workman dismissed the charges and said it was impossible to be certain Sir Stephen was the same man who exposed himself to her. Sir Stephen said during the trial: 'I have no desire to engage in such behaviour whatsoever. 'I am a happily married family man and I cannot conceive of deriving any form of gratification from exposing my penis. 'I would not wish to cause offence, let alone alarm or distress, to anyone.' Following the case, two other women reportedly came forward alleging they were 'flashed' at in similar circumstances. But it is understood no further action was taken as it was considered impossible to rely on identification evidence as Sir Stephen's picture had been widely circulated after the offence. The Office of Judicial Communications, an independent body which speaks on behalf of judges, said: 'In September 2009, Lord Justice Richards was arrested by the British Transport Police. 'He immediately informed the Lord Chief Justice and agreed not to sit until the investigation was over. He was neither charged nor cautioned. 'Towards the end of October he was informed that no proceedings would be taken against him. 'Thereafter he resumed his duties. The judge has nothing further to say on the matter.' A spokesman for the Judicial Communication Office confirmed that Lord Justice Richards, who earns around £196,000 a year, would have been receiving full pay while the investigation into the sexual attack was carried out. SOURCE FLASHER JUDGE NOW FACING TWO MORE ACCUSERS Judge cleared of flashing will not face second trial Judge Richards now back deciding on sex cases in court

UK JUDGES SHOW UNHEALTHY BIAS TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALS AND AGAINST CHRISTIANS

Gary McFarlane,(left) 48, from Bristol, is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples . Church leaders head for showdown with top judges over bias against Christians. Senior figures in the Church of England are forcing an unprecedented showdown with the judiciary over an allegation that some of the country's most senior judges are prejudiced against Christianity. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other church leaders will urge senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of "disturbing" and "dangerous" rulings they issued in recent religious discrimination cases. Senior churchmen do not think they have any chance of a "fair" ruling if the latest significant hearing – due on Thursday – is heard in front of those judges who, they argue, have already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs. Critics are particularly alarmed by a ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, that Lillian Ladele, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies – because they were against her Christian beliefs – broke the law. The Court of Appeal decided in December that the right to express a strong Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour's equality laws. Lord Carey and others will this week support a formal application by lawyers acting for Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor, that a specialist panel of five judges with a proven understanding of religious issues and headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, should be established to hear his case and future cases involving religious rights. Mr McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples. The hearing is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal, but it has not yet been decided which judges will hear the case. Mr McFarlane's legal team believe that Lord Neuberger and other judges should "recuse" – withdraw from participation – in future religious discrimination cases because of their alleged prejudices and their alleged "disparaging" remarks. The Church versus judiciary showdown comes just two weeks after senior bishops expressed alarm that Christians in Britain were being persecuted and "treated with disrespect". In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, six prominent bishops and Lord Carey described the "discrimination" against churchgoers as "unacceptable in a civilised society". Their intervention followed a series of cases in which Christians have lost their jobs after seeking to express their faith. In the most recent high-profile case, Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was banned from working on hospital wards for wearing a crucifix around her neck, last week lost her religious discrimination case against her employers. Mrs Chaplin, 54, who lives near Exeter and who had worn the cross every day for 38 years, described the decision as a "very poor day" for Christians in the workplace. The Master of the Rolls is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after the Lord Chief Justice. The Master of the Rolls, a position which dates back to the 13th century, is the presiding officer of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. The Sunday Telegraph understands that Lord Carey has already prepared a lengthy witness statement in support of Mr McFarlane and that other Bishops are also prepared to air their grievances. This weekend there were moves among Church leaders to organise a demonstration outside the High Court on Thursday. It is understood that Lord Carey will use his statement to accuse the Court of Appeal of making a series of "disturbing" judgements and being responsible for some "dangerous" reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, from 1991 to 2002, believes that court rulings on the wearing of religious crucifixes show a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs – he argues most wear crosses as a sign of their fidelity to Jesus. In the long term, Lord Carey and others believe that there is a need to appoint a panel of judges – of all religious faiths – to hear sensitive religious rights cases. It is believed that in his statement, Lord Carey will specifically highlight the case of Miss Ladele to try to prove his point, saying the ruling is tantamount to accusing Christianity of begin "discriminatory" and to accusing Christians of being "bigots". In his ruling, Lord Neuberger said that it was a legitimate aim of Islington council in north London, Miss Ladele's employers, to have a policy "requiring all its employers to act in a way which does not discriminate against others". Lord Carey is not thought to have named Lord Neuberger in his statement but there is no doubt that the Master of the Rolls is targeted for criticism. Mr McFarlane will be represented in court on Thursday by Paul Diamond, the leading religious rights barrister, and he is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity. Andrea Minichiello Williams, the director of the centre, said yesterday: "Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments. "The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries. These decisions affect the fundamental freedoms of every UK citizen and this is now a critical election issue. It is vital that the major parties address this matter and give it the central platform it deserves." Some senior Muslims also believe that Christians in Britain receive a bad deal. Dr Taj Hargey, the Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, wrote last week: "Christianity is under siege in this country. Britain's national religion has never been so marginalised and derided by the public institutions that should be defending it." A spokeswoman for the Judicial Communications Office declined to comment on specific allegations against judges. However, she pointed out the judicial oath, sworn by all judges on their appointment: "I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." SOURCE

LONDON'S LIBEL JUDGES BEING USED TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN DISSENT WORLDWIDE VIDEO

FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE

UK'S TYRANNICAL JUDICIARY HAMMER G20 PROTESTORS VIDEO

FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE The British judiciary, lawyers and cops conspire to hammer dissidents and protestors showing the rise of a police state in the United Kingdom. Britain's establishment using masonic judges in courts to tyrannically undermine the civil and human rights of British citizens. How much more does it take for its people to rise up against a monster of a legal system with its thug cops used to keep us in our place. We have been stripped of any means to protect ourselves against these monsters now controlling the UK for their own financial ends. The British crown heading the massive police state and surveillance network being used against most of its citizens.

LETTER TO JACK STRAW AND BARONESS SCOTLAND

Rt. Hon Baroness Scotland Q.C. Rt. Hon Jack-Straw MP H.M. Attorney General Secretary of State for Justice 20 Victoria Street Selborne House London SW1H 0NF 24 March 2010 OPEN LETTER This letter is being sent in the PUBLIC INTEREST, and is being widely circulated on an international scale. It has been noted how both the Secretary of State for Justice and H.M. Attorney General have been ignoring, and continue to ignore, the many attempts to alert them both to taking constructive and appropriate action, to address, and to counter the serious corruption and extortion being carried out through, in particular, Her Majesty’s Court Service and Her Majesty’s Insolvency Service. The effects of this have become thoroughly intolerable to the majority of the more ‘awake’ British People. Whether you are aware of this or not, be advised that we hold hard evidence that huge numbers of law-abiding civilians are being made “bankrupt” as a nefarious and devious means of ‘debt collection’ through the exploits of appointed ‘officials’ within HMCS and HMIS, even when no debtor exists, and a serious ‘Abuse of process’ is occurring. It is an alarming ‘state of play’ in Britain today: our ‘Justice’ System (so-called) is crumbling at the seams and no Law and Order prevails any longer, notably with huge numbers of Judges ignoring their Judicial Oath and sitting in a private capacity for their own pecuniary gain. The ongoing Conspiracy of Silence from your side, as the two main responsible officials for this dreadful state of affairs, appears to be an indication that you, as the appointed top Government appointees, are already aware of these sordid goings-on? The absence of you taking personal responsibility can only be described as a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY on your part – since, if you can not tackle these things, who can ? Suffice it to say, it is highly relevant to England’s NATIONAL SECURITY and therefore it is essential that it is competently addressed and tackled, in the Public Interest. This includes the obvious step of taking remedial action to counter the appalling oppression that has been created by the Labour Government where many are witnessing the slow-torture of innocent civilians living under “UK STATE TERROR”, that has spiralled out of control. It is also the ultimate hypocrisy. How can we be wasting so many billions of taxpayers money through the British presence in Afghanistan, whilst the citizens ‘at home’ are being looted, pillaged, oppressed and abused by the Stasi-State that Britain has been allowed to become through the sheer Myopia of those in the seat of power, abusing their power? Why are the priorities overseas ? Why can’t Britain mind her own business, and get on with cleaning up her own “back yard” ? There is no justification whatever for our troops in Afghanistan, and ample need to taxpayers money to be more wisely spent on resolving so many serious matters on the ‘home front’ – before even contemplating interfering in other countries. We now have, in Britain, the ultimate ‘State Terror’, directly created and caused by sloppy and ill-qualified Government departments who routinely turn a blind eye to the openly brazen committal of forgery, fraud, falsification of documents and perversion of all types through H.M. Court service and the Insolvency Service – which has been allowed to run rampant under the jurisprudence of H.M. Attorney General. Some examples of these are enclosed. Innocent and bewildered civilians are being terrorised and maliciously labelled “vexatious litigants”, through manipulations of the Judicial System, and when the real ‘vexation’ emanates mostly from the side of our government-appointed out-of-touch Judges: most of whom are not fit to sit in a Public position of the highest powers in the Land, simply because they are NOT adhering to their Judicial Oath and remit, nor acting with probity, for the most part ! A great many of them do not even examine case evidence, the corruption is so far gone. There is also a widespread and unnecessary victimisation of Litigants in Person, where the privileges of the biased Legal System is rendered out of the reach of most of them, both financially and judicially. This has been directly cultivated by crooked lawyers and banksters who liberally abuse their privileges and power, and who side with ‘The Big Four’ accountancy practices to target and asset-strip whomever they may please. Many of us are painfully aware that all of this stems from the fraudulent Monetary System which issues and over-leverages money as ‘debt’ when it comes into being, where the invidious driving force behind all human misery is the Banking Cartel – who have positioned themselves to rig everything in their favour, including the monopolisation of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority so that 99% of Law firms are barred from acting against them ! In the urgent PUBLIC INTEREST, I would like to know what steps the Government is prepared to take, without delay, to implement the following urgent and long-overdue ‘clean up’:- 1. CURTAILMENT OF RACKETEERING IN HMCS and HMIS To fully expose and put an immediate stop to the racketeering that is being carried out in Her Majesty’s Courts and the brazen and unashamedly unlawful asset stripping in the Insolvency Service? This includes all levels of Judges receiving bribes and ‘back-handers’ from major financial Institutions, in particular, who make criminal arrangements to secretly and silently pervert Justice behind the scenes so they will rule in their favour; as well as large Accounting firms being dished out glib “instructions” to act as Trustees & Receivers on questionable cases involving huge sums of money arising from spurious litigation, often with FORGED liquidations! Needless to say, these same ‘official receivers’ end up snatching up to 1000 times more than anything they ever “recover”, in their Fat Cat fees: it is the very worst form of legalised racketeering. In addition, there is evidence of Judges who are being paid substantial sums by the taxpayer, but who busy themselves for the most part in cutting private business deals with corrupt parties, and who hire these Judges as “Consultants” often in major corporations or Law firms which further goes against the grain of the Public Interest and leaves litigants unfairly exposed to the consequences of such illicit practices. This also encourages illegal cartels and encourages (often overt) protectionism of the Lloyds Master Policy which leads to rigged outcomes and failure to pay on genuine claims worthy of settlement. 2. BANISHING JUDGES AND MP’S FORTHWITH FROM SITTING AS LLOYDS NAMES OR UNDERWRITERS To ban Judges from being allowed to sit as Underwriters or Lloyds names for Lloyds of London, or any other similar entity, since most legal cases trace back to insurance cover and this is a gross perversion and bias that is being condoned in our Courts and Judicata for a very long time now, and which is highly prejudicial to many cases. I have access to evidence of between 40-60 Judges who are seriously conflicted to act, being Lloyds names (including Lord David Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, who sits on no less than 25 or more Lloyds Syndicates!) Note: Evidence is available against Nicholas Demery, Head of Litigation at Lloyds of London, who is known to have personally cut a series of illegal deals with Lloyds-name Judges of high rank, AND also MP’s, providing them with ‘special dispensation and exemption from having to pay up on claims’, and other similar atrocities. 2. APPOINTING JUDGES DEMOCRATICALLY AND THROUGH THE VOTING SYSTEM (NOT BY GOVERNMENT) To immediately cease the practice of allowing the Government to appoint our Judges, which is wide open to corruption and bias. Judges need to be INDEPENDENTLY and DEMOCRATICALLY appointed, and voted in, and there needs to be a ‘Panel of Public Opinion’ like a Grand Jury made available to oversee the conduct and behaviour of Judges, to include their judicial decisions which are often highly flawed, unlawful, and based on corrupt deals being done in secret – rendering the whole Judicial set up contemptuous and effete, and unfit for the purpose intended. 3. INTRODUCING STIFF PENALTIES FOR JUDGES AND THOSE WHO ABUSE THEIR POSITIONS IN PUBLIC OFFICE & MAKING THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO GO BEFORE A ‘GRAND JURY’ IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION There needs to be very stiff penalties for Judges and Officers of the Court (which includes ALL solicitors and barristers) who ABUSE their privileges and positions of power, which should include making them personally liable for financial losses they directly cause where, for instance, a serious ‘error of judgment’ occurs, or where they have been caught racketeering or engaging in Bribery and Corruption. The racketeering and extorting of profits operates through self-interested conspirators serving their own Agendas and forming “inside tracks” within fast-failing Government departments and Quangos like the FSA (often acting outside of their jurisdiction), the Commissioner’s Office (regularly condoning criminal abuse of the Data Protection Act by banks etc), the IPCC (allowing the Police to self-police and engaging in protectionism), the OJC (which engages in a lackadaisical attitude towards properly tackling the fully justified and often serious complaints brought to their attention against incompetent Judges, and sends out standard letters in a mindless and disengaged manner), all resulting in little more than a time-wasting exercise, and so on. Such practices renders these departments UNFIT FOR THE PURPOSE, and the British People would be better off without them, and with a new, democratically-elected, Grand Jury of large numbers of civilians ‘of standing’ to rotate through the workings of overseeing and remedying complaints. 4. REMOVING BIAS, HYPOCRISY & UNFAIR PRACTICE IN THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD , THE SRA, AND THE VARIOUS OMBUDSMEN SERVICES The same above codes need also to apply to our Ombudsmen services. In addition, the BAR COUNCIL needs urgently overhauling, as an issue of serious bias exists with the Bar Standards Board, whose “committee” is far from independent as it is stacked in favour of BSB members on a ratio of 3:1 members to Laymen. This proactively and deliberately prevents fairness, and blocks Justice from the very foundations being flawed. Why are the British people expected to tolerate such things ? Similarly, the Solicitors Code of Conduct Rules are being seriously violated by huge numbers of solicitors and counsel operating and posing as “officers of the court’ when in reality, they are merely running a HIDDEN CARTEL and are in cahoots with judges and the whole unhealthy Judicial hierarchy – which has been relatively unchallenged for many decades! There is a serious abuse of power going on across the Board of the whole Judicata, resulting in a record number of ‘miscarriages of Justice’ and the like. 5. VITAL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES Finally, I would like to know the written answers to the six questions posed below, at the earliest opportunity, as these questions have directly arisen from all of the above operational problems:- 1. Is a false statement (perjury) made in connection with a Case, able to constitute a "valid judicial decision" ? 2. Is a false (forged) statement in court data, considered valid as to be called "data", and can it ever be classified as a ‘Judicial decision’ ? 3. Does a prescribed (required) Court form have any validity without the seal of the Court ? can it be classified as a judicial decision ? and is a pre-printed court seal bearing no date, a 'valid' seal ? What defines a 'valid' seal, and differentiates it from a 'forged' seal ? Are Courts trained to distinguish between the two ? How can those putting their trust in the Courts know they are not being duped by corrupt officials of the Court ? And what remedies are available to them? 4. Given the alarming number of forged and/or false documents being laundered through HMCS and issued by HMIS, can the Government sensibly make available some form of QUALITY CONTROL in our Courts, in the PUBLIC INTEREST ? 5. What is the 'standard' expected of a Court 'ORDER' and how should it look or appear ? e.g. should a valid Order always bear Her Majesty's Crest at the top ? How can one differentiate from a falsified Court order (typed on to a plain piece of paper, with no Judge's signature, and questionable content, for example, which anyone could have typed up) and/or a genuine and LAWFUL Order ? How can one sensibly discern ? WHERE ARE THE STANDARDS ? 6. Given that an alarming number of Judges in HMCS are provably sitting in a private capacity, and/or sitting with a 'vested interest' on certain cases, and/or accepting 'back-handers' or slush money from major institutions in return for providing judgments in their favour, and/or are conflicted to sit in a court because outside interests, and/or in a worrying number of instances are readily abandoning their 'Judicial Oath' in favour of their own pecuniary advantage: so what measures can be put in place to tackle these gross ineptitudes and unjudicial events? SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Given that every single statement from a Judge is supposedly under oath (arising from their Judicial Oath), and given that every statement from a Solicitor of counsel / QC is supposedly under their Code of Conduct Rules (which they routinely violate), then what is their penalty for TRANSGRESSION of these Oaths ? We , the Public, are inarguably being seriously DUPED, and an increasing and worrying number of legal professionals for the most part appear to have no shame or respect for their clients, but instead, cow tow to the whim of the bloated Judges in HMCS – AND NONE OF THESE THINGS SERVE US. We have documented multiple cases, and are continuing to corroborate many victims in support of everything that is herein written in this letter, and therefore we require your urgent attention to these overwhelmingly pressing and important issues. Where a Judge’s statement is proven to be false, then do you accept that this would constitute 'high treason' ? We hold incontrovertible evidence to show that the amount of 'high treason' in HM Insolvency Service, blatantly laundering billions of pounds through HMCS, is at an all time high, arising from this and other failings of the governance of this country. It begs the question: who, precisely, is benefitting from these happenings ? Everything points to ORGANISED CRIME AT GOVERNMENT LEVEL, and we defy you to disprove this. The evidence against you is growing, daily. Therefore, without delay, please advise what steps can be put in place to tackle the extreme and unfair 'double standards' and hypocritical stance of many of our Civil Servants, who are Conducting themselves and operating (knowingly) OUTSIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND ? Your early and comprehensive response is awaited. Yours sincerely, Elizabeth Watson Founder ONE VOICE ACTION GROUP

ZERO TOLERANCE OF VIOLENCE IMPOSED BY A THUG STATE

Britain's dictators demand zero tolerance of violence while they are maybe the biggest thugs and murderers across the globe .When you see the lengths the UK's masonic controlled legal, political and cop mafia's go to control its unarmed citizens from the slightest sign of aggression while they are busily blowing up poor families in war zones like Iraq, you see major double standards in operation. When the STATE decide to use bully boy tactics , thuggery, torture and psychological persecution against anyone who DARES challenge their power ITS OK!!!!!!!!!! and we have many members who have faced that evil conduct. However anyone who dares to try and protect themselves from any form of criminal act will find themselves in the dock or jail. This for only trying to protect themselves and their families from a country that NO LONGER protects the public but only the serial criminals who are the financial life blood (via legal aid) of the lawyers, judges, cops , social workers and prison warders who rely heavily on a never ending supply of criminals passing through the corporate doors of the legal mafia's courts . The bizarre effect of disarming the population while relying solely on a police force, heavily infested with masons, who's only agenda is to use the power and control that British cops abuse on a public that is being fleeced of billions through crown corruption in civil courts. Why do so many cops spend so much time involving themselves in civil matters like divorce? This is the BIGGEST bonanza for the masonic coffers when a non mason man's assets , home and children are up for grabs and the masonic cops and bailiff's daily throw families onto the street while land, business and property is being stolen in these utter dens of iniquity. Terrorism is being used as a smokescreen by the REAL terrorists who are terrorizing the long suffering public and who daily are being condemned to a life of homelessness, poverty and deprivation from the thuggery that is being generated by the black robed thugs in star chambers across the UK. Fighting Judicial Corruption FAMILY COURT THUGGERY HERE

RENT BOY JUDGE STILL ON PAYROLL

A JUDGE suspended last summer after he let his rent boy lover sit next to him in court is STILL being paid £2,500 a week. Married Gerald Price QC has not presided over any cases since last June, when an official probe was launched into his conduct. Nine months later the inquiry remains "ongoing" and Price continues to draw his salary - thought to be £129,000 A YEAR - from the public purse. And the Office for Judicial Complaints refuses to say how much longer its investigation will take. The male hooker - Christopher Williams, 25 - told the News of the World last year how Price, 60, was so besotted with him that he set him up with a flat and paid him a monthly allowance. The dad of two even let Williams sit on the bench with him during Swansea Crown Court trials. He gave him unfettered access to a total of three Crown Courts - telling officials that Williams was a law student. A week after we broke our story, the Office for Judicial Complaints confirmed Price would not preside over any cases "pending the outcome of the investigation into his conduct". The Office confirmed the probe was continuing but refused to comment further. SOURCE 'Rent boy scandal' probe - Swansea judge remains suspended

BEHIND THE BLACK ROBES: FAILED JUSTICE

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice is about a very serious problem, the need for court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Marinated with the makings of sizzle, the book is filled with the courts' tricks and traps for the unwary---to alert the readers both why their law cases failed and what must be done to effect court reform. Each chapter introduces the background of the subject of that chapter and then presents a series of illustrative anecdotes intended to teach the readers by example how to avoid those court tricks and traps people are likely to encounter in their existing or potential court cases. About the Author Johnson lives life her way. An unconventional 74-year-old, she has long been a fierce advocate for fathers' rights in family courts. She is an outspoken critic of the Massachusetts court system, which she says is rife with corruption. In 2002, she ran a quixotic campaign for governor, campaigning in an antique fire truck and promising to use creativity, compassion, and a willingness to listen to the People to mend an ailing government. In 2006, Johnson was barred from practicing law in Massachusetts. "The disbarment by a kangaroo court was an effort to silence my criticism of the courts," she said, adding laughingly, "I'll have to write a series of judicial murder mysteries and kill off a judge in the prologue of every one." A newspaper wrote, "While we don't fully agree with either her politics or her methods, Johnson is a character in a humdrum world sorely in need of more characters. She's the thorn in the side, the thumbtack on the chair. . . . Johnson speaks her mind, and loudly." SOURCE False allegations

COURTHOUSE STABBINGS: MAN INTENDED TO KILL JUDGE WHO RUINED HIM VIDEO

FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE CCTV footage, Zunyi, Guizhou, China - Man bursts into courthouse and in less than sixty seconds stabs four people. Apparently his intention was to kill a judge, who had "sent him him onto the road to ruin".

PETER OAKES ON MASONIC JUDGES AND BIGOTRY: HOUSE OF LORDS 3 MARCH 2010 VIDEO

CORRUPT LAWYERS HERE

HOW THE BRITISH JUDICIARY GET AWAY WITH 'MURDER'

HOW THE BRITISH JUDICIARY CONSPIRE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR CROOKED MASONIC BROTHERS Tanned, relaxed and earning big bucks... the judge who was far 'too stressed' to face trial He was at the centre of one of the biggest scandals to engulf the English judiciary. There was an outcry when lawyers for Judge Richard Gee said fraud charges against him should be dropped because he was 'too stressed' to face trial at the Old Bailey. The Attorney General halted the case, which had already cost taxpayers £3million, including several hundred thousand pounds in legal aid. But the Daily Mail can reveal that a decade on, Gee has made an extraordinary recovery from his 'anxiety problems'. He has re-qualified as a New York attorney and runs his own law firm from one of Manhattan's most fashionable addresses. He hobnobs with the great and the good and, deeply sun-tanned in casual attire with a jumper flung over his shoulder, is pictured here at a New York society party. Gee flaunts his lavish lifestyle on Twitter, where he cheekily goes under the name 'bewigged' and gives regular updates on his penchants for golf, swimming and vodka. The scandal involving Gee erupted in October 1998 when his proposed retrial over fraud charges sensationally collapsed at the Old Bailey. He had been charged with deception over an alleged mortgage swindle during the 1980s housing boom. His first trial, which lasted four months, ended with a hung jury. He was then examined by Professor John Gunn from the Maudsley Hospital, South London, who considered him to be plagued by suicidal impulses. 'The stress of a retrial would endanger his life,' declared the professor. The Attorney General of the time, John Morris QC, employed an ancient discretionary power, nolle prosequi, meaning a permanent stay was placed on the prosecution. Mr Morris's ruling astonished Scotland Yard detectives who considered launching a fresh investigation into Gee's finances, in particular how he came to be awarded legal aid to face the deception charges. The judge, who insisted on being addressed as 'Your Honour' during police interviews, allegedly had offshore bank accounts in Jersey, Switzerland and possibly the Cayman Islands. In December 1999, four years after he was first suspended on full pay over the fraud allegations, Gee tendered his resignation as a circuit judge. He remained entitled to a substantial index-linked pension, now believed to be worth about £35,000 a year, and a lump sum of £46,000 when he reached 65. Today Gee, now 67, enjoys an enviable lifestyle in New York. His wealthy second wife Marilyn Gross, an American aged 77, owns a £1.3million seaside house in Quogue, Long Island, an area dubbed 'Trillionaires' Row'. Michael J Fox has a mansion nearby, as does Stephen Spielberg. Together the couple own a nine-bedroomed house, converted into flats, in Providence, Rhode Island. They also rent a 12th floor apartment in one of the most fashionable streets in Manhattan. Joan Collins lives in the 20th floor penthouse. According to sources, Gee owns a Sea Ray speed boat, a Ford Thunderbird convertible, a Mercedes station wagon and a Honda SUV. Foreign lawyers wishing to work in New York are initially evaluated by a panel of peers to make sure they are suitably qualified to practise. They then do a short course on American law before taking the bar exam. Having a criminal record would be enough to disqualify an applicant, but Gee was never convicted. A former Crown Prosecution Service lawyer who had dealings with Gee said: 'If he is fit enough to be a New York attorney and have an active social life, then he is surely well enough to come back to Britain to stand trial.' Gee has not been formally disbarred from legal practice in this country. He simply quit as a judge before he was sacked. The improvement in Gee's health echoes that of Guinness Four member Ernest Saunders, who was released from prison ten months into a five-year sentence after convincing medical experts he was suffering from presenile dementia. Following his release, Saunders made a full recovery and returned to high-powered business. Despite repeated attempts, Gee could not be reached for comment. SOURCE

JUDGES 2

JUDGES 1