|Innocent men face a biased police and legal system over rape claims
|Feminist lawyer heading UK CPS determined to tag rape on to innocent men
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Police face more questions over why officers didn’t hand over vital evidence that would have cleared student, 22, of rape as MPs demand inquiry and his mother brands case a ‘witch hunt’
(They use the same vile sexism against men during divorce who are maliciously accused by bitter ex wives and their legal aid funded lawyers)
Crown lackey lawyer feminist Alison Saunders new HATE crimes or just trying to protect jewish criminals?
Vile feminist propaganda merchant Alison Saunders facing calls to quit after her decision not to prosecute alleged homopaedo Lord Janner was overturned
(She has been pushing the domestic violence ruse while defending jewish lawyer homopaedo Greville Janner's vile abuses)
Feminist domestic violence propaganda merchant DPP lawyer Alison Saunders rejects calls to quit - as jewish lawyer and Lord Janner is charged over homopaedo abuse claims
For any man facing divorce this will come as no surprise as lawyers across the UK are determined
to pin abuse charges on to men dragged into family courts. But at what cost?
The text message was explicit and unequivocal. ‘No pain without gain,’ the young woman boasted to a friend.
She was referring enthusiastically to a sexual act she had performed with a former partner who had ended their relationship. She had ‘begged’ him to take her back, but he wasn’t interested. She ‘pestered’ him for casual sex, other digital messages made clear. Still he had refused.
Today the pain is entirely with the ex-boyfriend, 22-year-old undergraduate Liam Allan; a man of good character.
It is only by luck rather than the proper, statutory, functioning of the criminal justice system, that Mr Allan is not beginning a substantial prison sentence for multiple rapes and a sexual assault, and a life-long presence on the sex offenders’ register.
This is an extraordinary and troubling case; one which goes to the heart of the controversy surrounding Britain’s rape laws and the policy-shaping role of Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, who only recently suggested that a rape acquittal did not mean the alleged victim was not telling the truth. Her growing number of critics see the issue as a matter of political correctness versus common sense. Already under-resourced, the system is being pushed to deliver on ideologically driven target figures rather than blind justice.
What then of the catalogue of failures that almost ruined the life of an innocent man? The sequence of events is chilling.
Mr Allan had spent two years on bail and was charged with the serious sex offences in March. He had been suspended from his job which pays towards his university education. Much more than that hung in the balance. But on Thursday his trial at Croydon Crown Court collapsed when it emerged ‘at the 59th minute of the 11th hour’ that a cache of some 40,000 texts and social media messages sent by his former lover turned accuser, and downloaded on to a disk by police two years ago, had not been disclosed to the defence by the investigating officer.
Nor had the police given the CPS or the prosecuting counsel at trial sight of the material. That in itself was very wrong.
Far worse – and threatening a serious miscarriage of justice – was that the messages, many sent on platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat, presented an ‘entirely contrary’ version of the accuser’s sexual and emotional relationship with Mr Allan to the one she had given to the police and in court.
Mr Allan’s defence counsel Julia Smart was handed 2,400 pages of transcripts of the phone messages only after the complainant had given her evidence from the witness box when the case opened two weeks ago.
His defence team had been pressing for access to the phone records but were rebuffed by the police on grounds that there was nothing of material interest to the case.
Last night, prosecuting counsel Jerry Hayes said that he had asked the investigating officer – believed to be a detective constable – about the existence of the disk only when Miss Smart had pressed him on it during the trial. Mr Hayes had been appointed to the case only at the start of the trial.
‘Police officers do not seem to understand their duties of disclosure,’ Mr Hayes, a former MP, told the Mail last night. ‘They have a statutory duty to look at everything – not just the bits that will help the prosecution. They should log all the material and then send it up to the CPS lawyer handling the case. That did not happen here.
‘The first thing I knew about [these messages] was when we were halfway through the trial. The defence counsel asked if I was sure there was no digital download from the complainants’s phone.
‘She said, “Are you sure there’s nothing there?” I said I would check. I asked the officer if he had the disk of phone material.
‘“Oh yes,” he said. But he said it was clearly not disclosable, as some of it was very private.
‘I asked him if there was anything on the disk which could undermine the prosecution case. “No,” he said.’
This was clearly nonsense. A nonsense that would have put Mr Allan behind bars for a long time.
Mr Hayes said that, having learned the disk existed, he had a duty to serve the material to the defence. The trial was adjourned until this week.
Miss Smart sat up into the small hours examining the undisclosed evidence. It was worth the sleepless night. What Miss Smart found in the time available was only ‘the tip of the iceberg’ but turned the case on its head.
Mr Hayes said yesterday that he agreed with Miss Smart that the messages were ‘devastating’ to the prosecution case.
The wider impact on the way the investigation and prosecution of rape in Britain remains to be seen.
On Thursday, Judge Peter Gower found Mr Allan not guilty on all charges, after Mr Hayes had apologised to the student on behalf of the prosecution, which offered no evidence against him.
‘There is something that has gone wrong and it is a matter that the Crown Prosecution Service, in my judgment, should be considering at the very highest level,’ said the judge.
‘Otherwise there is a risk not only of this happening again but that the trial process will not detect what has gone wrong and there will be a very serious miscarriage of justice. He leaves the courtroom an innocent man without a stain on his character.
The judge said that police must tell prosecutors about all material collected during their investigations. ‘It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster if material is not viewed by a lawyer,’ he said. ‘Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court.’ Indeed it had.
More than 200million texts are sent in the UK every day. It is the communication of choice for the younger generation. It also leaves an unambiguous digital trail.
It is hard as yet to gauge the mindset or motives of the investigating police officer involved. But he seems at best to have gone about the task as if the messages did not ever exist. Mr Hayes told the court: ‘It appears the officer in the case has not reviewed the disk, which is quite appalling.’ Incompetent, certainly.
Inevitably, the role of Mrs Saunders and her campaign to increase the number of rape prosecution and convictions looms large.
According to the latest statistics, sex attacks recorded by police are at a record high of 129,700 – an average of about one every four minutes.
Rapes rose by about 22 per cent in the year to June to 45,100, while other sex offences rose by 17 per cent to 84,600 – the highest level since records began in 2002.
Experts say that the rise was partly because victims were more willing to report attacks – including historical ones – and police are more likely to take complaints seriously since the Jimmy Savile sex-abuse scandal.
Convictions rose from 2,689 in 2015–16 to a record 2,991 in 2016–17 – up 11 per cent. But unsuccessful prosecutions also increased from 1,954 to 2,199 over the same period – a rise of 12 per cent.
Mrs Saunders has made a number of incendiary statements on the subject. In 2015, she advised that women who wake up in a man’s bed with no recollection of the night before should seek advice from a rape counsellor.
In August, she said prosecutors should examine alleged rapists’ past sexual behaviour and treatment of women as part of efforts to increase conviction rates.
In October, she claimed that acquittals in rape cases where the victim was drunk do not necessarily mean that they made a false allegation to police. The DPP pointed to research suggesting that malicious claims are made in less than 1 per cent of rape cases.
But critics said her comments raised a question mark over the innocence of rape suspects cleared by a jury and lent credence to the notion that there was ‘no smoke without fire’ in unproven allegations. Mr Allan now feels forced to defend his good name again by speaking to as many news outlets as possible.
As the law on anonymity for rape accusers dictates, the world is left knowing far more about the wronged defendant than the false accuser. Mr Allan will hope to be able to pick up the pieces and get on with life.
His sexual history – real or imagined – has been picked over in public in minute detail.
Then there is the taint of having been charged with multiple rape and assaults in the first place – something which, with human nature and the internet being what it is, he will not necessarily be allowed to forget.
The CPS will now conduct a ‘management review’. The Met said there would be an ‘urgent assessment’ by the force. Too late for Mr Allan – and of no service at all to the real victims of male sexual violence.
|Lawyers don't just harass divorcing men then?
|Lawyers behind super rich offshore tax dodging have had financial details hacked in Bermuda
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Appleby Appoint Robinson, Langley & Davies
Cyber attack on the super-rich: The world's wealthiest people are braced for their financial details to be leaked after hackers target offshore firm in Bermuda
*Bermuda-based firm Appleby has warned its clients their details may be exposed
*The world's richest people use the law firm and they are now bracing themselves
*They are now seeking advice from lawyers as their tax benefits could be released
Some of the world's richest people could have their financial records revealed after hackers targeted a major offshore firm, it emerged last night.
Bermuda-based law firm Appleby, which has offices in many tax havens, warned clients they may have their details exposed after the massive hack of its database.
It is understood some of the wealthiest Britons are seeking instructions from lawyers and public-relations firms as they prepare for the possibility that their overseas tax benefits will be revealed.
The status of British Overseas Territories could also be called into question.
Appleby, which denies any wrongdoing, said that it was 'issuing a statement to all our clients'.
The company, which has officers in Jersey, Mauritius and Seychelles, said that it had reviewed its cyber-security and data-access arrangements following a 'data-security incident' last year.
It told The Daily Telegraph that, after working with a 'leading IT forensics team', it was confident its 'data integrity is secure' and the firm was 'committed to achieving the high standards set by our regulators'.
A global consortium of left-leaning media groups are preparing to release details of the leaks over the coming days, the Telegraph reports.
A statement from Appleby said: 'We would be happy to co-operate fully with any legitimate and authorised investigation of the allegations by the appropriate and relevant authorities.'
The hack comes a year after the Panama Papers exposed the hidden wealth of some of the world's most powerful people.
Some 11 million files were leaked from law firm Mossack Fonseca, with the revelations forcing Iceland's prime minister to resign, as well as exposing offshore accounts of Russian president Vladimir Putin's associates.
Bermuda, which has one of the highest incomes per capita, has previously defended itself against accusations that it is a tax haven, stating that the authorities are informed of the beneficiaries of all trust companies set up on its shores.
|Lawyers still protected Weinstein like Savile in the UK
|Lawyers protect Hollywood perverts like Weinstein (UK lawyers protected Savile)
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Weinstein: Zionist perverts in Hollywood only now getting exposed in their global media
(That same media didn't seem at all interested when it was young boys being abused and exposed by Corey Feldman)
Why were Oldman and Gibson forced to grovel after exposing the jewish domination of Hollywood?
(Weinstein's lurid exposures prove them right)
Robert Downy Jr. Blows the Whistle on Elite Hollywood Pedophile Ring
Hollywood Insider Speaks Out, Claims a Global Pedophile Ring Controls Hollywood
Hollywood is creeping and crawling with paedo's(VIDEO)
Corey Feldman hopeful 'Hollywood' homopaedo who abused him as child will be named and “nightmare” will end
Corey Feldman describes his ordeal at the hands of Hollywood homopaedo ring
An Open Secret 2015 (VIDEO)
Jimmy Savile-style high-powered homopaedo ring at work in Hollywood claims Elijah Wood
Zionism and the total control of American cinema (ebook)
Hollywood is racist, says actor Chloe Bennet amid whitewashing row
(Only one of Hollywood's many dire traits)
As we have been exposing for a very LONG time the corporate rags are finally getting round to just who
is behind the protection network of a global ring of jewish perverts controlling Hollywood and British movies.
Lawyers who keep Hollywood abuse secret are to blame, says Weinstein's British producer 'victim', 44, as pressure mounts on A-list stars to denounce 'sex pest' producer
Even by the standards of Hollywood, it has been a spectacular fall from grace.
After nearly three decades of artistic and commercial triumph, the reputation of film producer Harvey Weinstein lies in ruins – mired in sleazy claims that at least eight women have been paid hush money to silence their accounts of his sexual harassment.
And today another of Weinstein’s alleged victims, British producer Zelda Perkins – a former Weinstein employee who bravely confronted the mogul about his treatment of women – breaks a 20-year silence, alleging that Hollywood and the world of showbusiness perpetuate sexual abuse by allowing rich and powerful men to pay off their accusers.
‘This is a system which SILENCES victims of all types of misconduct, protects the powerful and perpetuates abuse,’ she told The Mail on Sunday. ‘That cannot be right.’
Perkins is seen as a potentially key witness and her intervention will increase the pressure on the multi-millionaire producer, who has admitted behaving inappropriately and claims to be seeking professional help.
Last night, Weinstein was dumped by his legal adviser, high-profile FEMINIST lawyer Lisa Bloom, who had been under mounting criticism for siding with the beleaguered studio chief. And three of the nine-man board of The Weinstein Company resigned.
There are growing calls, too, for the many leading figures who have supported Weinstein in the past – including FEMINIST LAWYER Hillary Clinton – to condemn his behaviour publicly.
Some of Hollywood’s most famous names owe their success, or part of it at least, to the patronage of Weinstein, including Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare In Love) Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting), Jessica Alba (Sin City), and Sienna Miller (Factory Girl).
Often seen as the most powerful man in the film industry, his world came crashing down last week, when The New York Times revealed that eight women have been paid hush money to silence claims that he sexually harassed them.
Two actresses, Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan have given excruciating testimony about how Weinstein pestered them for massages and sexual favours.
Zelda Perkins, now 44, was named in the investigation. She had been a young production assistant at Weinstein’s Miramax film company when she confronted the studio boss in the autumn of 1998.
It is understood that a Miramax lawyer was immediately dispatched to London to negotiate a settlement with a strict confidentiality clause – and since then she has kept her counsel.
Approached by this newspaper at her home in Wiltshire, however, she agreed finally to talk, attacking the culture of secrecy surrounding high-level sex abuse scandals.
‘Having read the New York Times article, I can only say that my interest is not in Harvey Weinstein. Nor the story of rich and powerful men abusing their positions,’ she said. ‘This is a well-documented reality.
‘It seems to me that we should be looking at the system itself – the lawyers and law firms that profit from drawing up non-disclosure agreements and the top-level executives who turn a blind eye, thus enabling this behaviour.’
According to the New York Times investigation, Perkins and several female colleagues were regularly subjected to inappropriate requests or comments in hotel rooms.
Weinstein’s typical modus operandi, the newspaper said, was to summon young staff members to hotel rooms before making inappropriate suggestions and promises of career advancement.
Former colleagues revealed that Perkins was particularly concerned about the treatment of a woman colleague and told Weinstein that if he did not stop, she would start legal action or, even worse, go public.
Responding to the cluster of allegations, Weinstein issued a bizarre statement of mea culpa, saying he was seeking help for his demons. But he has also denied some of the allegations and later announced he was suing the New York Times for £40 million, accusing the paper of ‘reckless reporting’.
It is no surprise that there is a British dimension to the career-long sex scandal around Weinstein, who has taken indefinite leave from The Weinstein Company – the production house he founded with his brother Bob after leaving Miramax – pending an investigation into the allegations.
Weinstein, now 65, is an Anglophile who has traditionally regarded London as a fertile hunting ground for highbrow projects that add to his professional prestige. Indeed, he won an Oscar for producing Shakespeare In Love, which featured a galaxy of British stars, including Joseph Fiennes, Judi Dench, Colin Firth and Martin Clunes.
His Miramax company was launched on the success of the British film The Secret Policemen’s Other Ball and other hits have included The Crying Game, Iris, Scandal, The English Patient and Paddington. Weinstein was even awarded an honorary OBE for services to the British film industry in 2004.
Father-of-five Weinstein also has a British wife Georgina Chapman, founder of the Marchesa fashion label, whom he says is standing by him. His status as a high-profile champion of liberal causes – he is a major donor to Democratic politicians including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – is under notable threat as more women come forward to allege lewd and inappropriate behaviour.
For the Democrats, the link to Weinstein is particularly embarrassing. Mr. Weinstein has given more than $1.4 million to candidates, parties and political action committees since 1990.
Among his biggest beneficiaries is LAWYER Barack Obama, whose daughter was an intern with Mr Weinstein’s company this year. At a schoolchildren’s career workshop at the White House, Michelle Obama called him ‘a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse’.
Weinstein is a long-time friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, to whose 2016 presidential campaign he was a major contributor, even holding a fundraiser in his home. Already some Democratic politicians have pledged either to give the money back or donate it to women’s charities in an attempt to stave off what is already being seen as a PR disaster, highlighting the breathtaking hypocrisy of what Donald Trump has reviled as the liberal elite.
The unveiling of Weinstein’s alleged sexual misdemeanours will also come as a huge embarrassment to the film world, where rumours about the allegation are said to have circulated for years.
Most studios and leading film industry figures have remained strictly silent about Weinstein – and indeed the ‘casting couch’ culture that has bedevilled Tinseltown for decades.
But actress Rose McGowan, who appeared in the Weinstein Company’s Scream films and reportedly settled a lawsuit with Weinstein several years ago, fired off a series of tweets about female empowerment. One read: ‘Women fight on.
And to the men out there, stand up. We need you as allies. #bebrave.’
Weinstein paid Miss McGowan a $100,000 settlement in 1997 after an episode in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival. The payment was ‘not to be construed as an admission’ by Mr Weinstein, but intended to ‘avoid litigation and buy peace’, according to the settlement document.
The most high-profile star to accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment is actress Ashley Judd who told The New York Times that Weinstein made approaches to her during the filming of the 1997 thriller Kiss The Girls.
She said he had invited her to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what she expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower.
‘I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times, and he always came back at me with some new ask,’ Ms. Judd said. ‘It was all this bargaining, this coercive bargaining.’
As recently as March 2015, Weinstein invited Ambra Battilana, an Italian model and aspiring actress, to his New York office to discuss her career. Within hours, she called the police, complaining Weinstein had grabbed her breasts after asking if they were real and put his hands up her skirt, the police report says.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office later declined to bring charges and the incident was closed after a confidential payment was made to the alleged victim.
The scandal now raises huge questions about whether more of the stars Weinstein has worked with and helped make famous will come forward with allegations.
Probably the biggest star to have collaborated with Weinstein is Gwyneth Paltrow, who – like him –won an Oscar for Shakespeare In Love. But in a 1990s New York magazine profile of Weinstein, she claimed he called in some uncomfortable favours, including asking her to pose in an S&M outfit for Talk magazine.
‘There were certain favours that he asked me to do that I felt were not exploitive but not necessarily as great for me as they were for him,’ Paltrow told the magazine. ‘I brought this to his attention and he said: “I will never do that again.” And he’s been true to his word.’
Whatever settlement is reached by the lawyers, the damage to Weinstein’s reputation, in an industry in which appearance is everything, seems incalculable.
|When you work for lawyers this is what happens
|Global lawyer monopoly controlled by freemasonry from Britain
|House thief used the legal mafia to steal homes from the vulnerable
|Only ONE of many legal rats who hound men but media only interested when its the military
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Tank-chasing lawyer Phil Shiner declares bankruptcy despite £1million business value in suspected bid to dodge £4million payout to taxpayers
Shiner was struck off for hounding British war heroes in an enquiry that did not produce one successful prosecution despite huge funds
THE solicitor struck off for hounding British war heroes has declared himself bankrupt — in a suspected bid to dodge handing back £4million to taxpayers.
Shamed tank-chaser Phil Shiner, 60, raked in millions in legal aid cash to bankroll his pursuit of troops.
A source said: “The unwritten understanding is he’s going bankrupt to avoid paying back huge sums he’s facing.”
His most recent accounts show his business worth more than £1million, sparking a riddle over where it’s gone.
The details, filed in December 2015, also showed his legal outfit, Public Interest Lawyers, had £190,000 in the bank.
Shiner, 60, applied to the Insolvency Service to be officially declared bankrupt on Tuesday.
Critics claimed the move was a bid to “wriggle” out of paying £4million back to taxpayers.
Land Registry documents show Shiner once owned two properties in Birmingham.
One is now worth £400,000 and the other £625,000.
He recently transferred the property to his two daughters which could be seen as an attempt to prevent seizure of assets
Two months ago Shiner transferred the mortgage-free £400,000 property to his daughters Leisha, 27, and Bethany, 29 — who both worked for his Birmingham-based firm.
The switch could be seen as an attempt to shield assets from seizure by the authorities.
Solicitor Bethany worked on cases involving British troops and caused outrage after claiming lawyers were being made “scapegoats”.
Shiner was lauded by human rights organisation Liberty for his work
Last August, the Legal Aid Agency cancelled the bumper contract enjoyed by Shiner after an 18-month probe.
With no cash coming in, he had to close his firm the same month.
Shiner was struck off last month after being found guilty of misconduct charges. He has been ordered to pay at least £250,000 costs to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for his trial.
The Legal Aid Agency is aiming to recoup more than £3million — and the MoD “millions” more to cover unneeded costs defending themselves.
Where did all the money go?
£100million spent by MoD on legal fees and compo since witch-hunt began into outlandish war claims
£57million cost so far of the IHAT team’s probe into 3,281 claims against Army staff
ZERO prosecutions so far brought against any serving or military personnel by IHAT
His firm overwhelmed the controversial Iraq Historical Allegations Team — set up to probe alleged wrongdoing during the Iraq War — with dodgy claims against British troops.
In total the MoD has paid out more than £100million on legal costs and compensation.
IHAT has cost £57million to date probing 3,281 claims. It has not brought a single prosecution and is to be closed this summer.
Ex-commander of British Forces in Afghanistan Col Richard Kemp said: “It’s hard to find any sympathy for Shiner.
“He hounded many brave soldiers and wrecked their lives.”
|Plague of lawyers greed, self-importance and lack of scruples of UK’s last unreformed vested interest group
Compliant media finally get round to exposing what we have been exposing for decades.
Judges are just glorified lawyers who have stealthily replaced juries making decisions
they have never had any authority to make as they are supposed to be arbiters.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
The loudest laugh in any Shakespeare play is often provoked by the line in Henry VI, Part II: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’ Indeed, over the centuries a lot of rude things have been said about representatives of the legal profession.
But however much lawyers may have been ridiculed in the past, I doubt they have ever been held in such low esteem as they are now.
A recent poll in America found that people ranked them lower than any other profession — below business executives, journalists and artists.
Yet lawyers are an increasingly dominant force in this country, not least because Britain now boasts more of them per head of population than almost any other nation.
They are supposed to defend and uphold the law, yet more and more they are renowned for being consumed by a desire to make barrow-loads money in order to feather their own nests.
Sometimes, their fees can run into the millions of pounds for a single trial. Their fondness for money is matched, not infrequently, by their sense of self-importance.
Only yesterday an official report revealed that the majority of judges think they are under-appreciated and underpaid.
Of 33 Court of Appeal judges who took part, each of whom earns more than £200,000 a year, two-thirds said their pay is not reasonable. They can say that again!
In short, the legal profession comprises what may be the last unreformed vested interest group — conducting themselves according to their own sometimes opaque rules, which often seem to operate more obviously for their own benefit than the public’s.
Consider the extraordinary case of Phil Shiner, a high-profile solicitor who was struck off eight days ago having had 12 charges of misconduct proved against him, and was the subject of yesterday’s devastating House of Commons report on ambulance-chasing lawyers bringing thousands of ‘spurious’ cases against our troops.
It was Phil Shiner of course who laboured so relentlessly to ruin the reputations of those troops.
But the story of his corruption and eventual downfall does not simply concern one rotten apple. The legal profession as a whole is implicated.
For while he and his firm pursued those specious claims against hundreds of British servicemen, this dishonest man was lauded by many of his colleagues.
In 2007, he was named solicitor of the year by the Law Society, the professional body in England and Wales that represents solicitors.
The number of solicitors for which this organisation speaks, by the way, has trebled from 44,000 in 1980 to 133,000 today as we become an increasingly litigious, lawyer-driven society — with lawyers naturally being the main beneficiaries.
There are deeply disturbing questions about Shiner’s integrity and motives, he was being praised by solicitors’ official publication, the Law Society Gazette.
As recently as June 2014, it referred to ‘media manufactured vilification’ and ‘malign hysteria’. Will the Gazette now apologise? Don’t hold your breath.
And will Rabinder Singh QC — now an exalted High Court judge, one of only 102 — express regret for having lavished public praise on Shiner, with whom he worked on several occasions while still a barrister? I don’t expect so.
In 2007, Singh said: ‘My honest view about lawyers is that we should be modest about what we contribute to justice . . . but Phil Shiner is an exception to that rule.
If there were no Phil Shiners in the country, then the sort of legal issues arising out of the Iraq war I don’t think would have surfaced.’
If only there were no Phil Shiners! This is a man who has finally admitted nine allegations of acting without integrity, which included making unsolicited approaches to potential clients.
Among his misdemeanours was the payment of ‘sweeteners’ to a fixer to persuade him to change his evidence in the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.
This collapsed, after £30 million of public money had been wasted investigating what proved to be false and dishonest allegations made by Shiner.
There could hardly be a graver charge against any lawyer since his falsehoods might have resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of British soldiers who had risked their lives for Queen and country.
Journalists have rightly been held to account over phone-hacking, and a handful were convicted.
But can anyone maintain that the sins of the most reckless phone hacker compared in seriousness with what Shiner did?
But then the degree to which lawyers police themselves in secret can be breath-taking. When Ben Emmerson QC was accused last year of sexually assaulting a woman in a lift at the offices of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, Matrix Chambers (for which he works) asked former High Court judge Sir David Calvert-Smith to investigate.
After Sir David had interviewed Emmerson, he concluded ‘without hesitation’ that the lawyer was innocent of any sexual impropriety.
It is no slur against either man to suggest that this secretive inquiry does not exactly inspire public confidence.
Few lawyers can, of course, rival the likes of Phil Shiner in deceit. But that a number of them are slippery to the point of dishonesty can scarcely be doubted. In 1990, ‘no-win, no-fee’ agreements were unfortunately introduced in the dog days of the Thatcher government in the belief that would provide greater access to the law for the poor.
Also described as ‘conditional fee agreements’, their effect has been a huge increase in the number of civil disputes as so-called ambulance-chasing lawyers have induced people to mount or fight cases they would not otherwise have accepted.
Such ‘no-win, no-fee’ arrangements encourage lawyers to rack up costs that can run into the millions, in the knowledge that the person they’re suing will pick up the bill if they win.
Thus a well-intentioned measure designed to help those who would otherwise be unable to afford justice was ruthessly exploited by avaricious lawyers.
A 1979 Royal Commission had warned: ‘The fact that the lawyer has a direct personal involvement in the outcome of the case may lead to undesirable practices including the construction of evidence, the improper coaching of witnesses [and] groundless arguments designed to lead courts into error and competitive touting.’
Prophetic words! If only someone had listened.
In 2012, the Commons Transport Select Committee noted a 70 per cent rise in motor injury claims during the previous six years, despite a 23 per cent drop in the number of casualties caused by road accidents. Bogus claims encouraged by lawyers (especially for hard-to-prove ‘whiplash’ injuries) provide much of the explanation.
Although it has since then become illegal for lawyers to pay insurance companies for the names of accident victims, there still appears to be a lucrative trade in this data.
We are all of us paying significantly more for our car insurance than we should, largely thanks to unscrupulous lawyers touting for business.
Isn’t this absolutely incredible? Before the War, my father briefly practised as a solicitor before becoming a clergyman. He would be utterly aghast if he knew that the honourable profession of which he was once a member had been disfigured by money-grubbing chancers.
These days there are lawyers everywhere, and it is no surprise at all that we have become one of the most litigious nations in the world.
Reforming no-win, no-fee agreements would be an important start in curbing burgeoning litigation, but history tells us than once lawyers have been given a benefit they are loath to surrender it. Might this be because an amazing one-fifth of 650 MPs in the Commons have a legal background, and unsurprisingly are quick to defend lawyers’ interests?
I don’t, of course, want to suggest that most lawyers are crooks like Mr Shiner. I am sure that there are many high-minded solicitors and barristers who above all want to serve the cause of justice. But while I accept there are some modestly remunerated lawyers, the desire to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible appears to have taken hold of large parts of the profession.
And yet while an elaborate judicial inquiry was set up to look into ‘the ethics of the Press’ — under a senior judge, needless to say, in the shape of Lord Justice Leveson — no one has suggested it might be a good idea to hold an inquiry into the ethics of lawyers.
On the subject of Leveson, it subsequently emerged that one of the inquiry’s lawyers — an attractive married lady — was having an affair with a bouffant-haired barrister acting for Hugh Grant, the press-hating actor.
Goodness knows what cooings between the two took place while the inquiry progressed, but a later probe by the Bar Standards Board — surprise, surprise! —cleared the pair of misconduct.
While junior barristers bump along on relatively low pay, fat-cat QCs can make grotesque amounts. Last March, David Pannick QC charged £407,250 for a defence involving a two-day trial he didn’t attend.
Pannick also appeared for Gina Miller in the recent Supreme Court case, arguing that Parliament should be consulted before Article 50 (setting in motion our withdrawal from the EU) is triggered. What absurd amount did he trouser this time?
Jonathan Sumption, now a Supreme Court judge, earned almost £8 million over a period of ten months defending the owner of Chelsea football club, Roman Abramovich. That worked out at about £40,000 a day in court.
You may say that if Abramovich was prepared to pay a lawyer such a ridiculous sum of money, that’s his business. But is this a really a free market? Or is it a well-defended fortress of privilege in which a handful of clever but not necessarily outstandingly brainy barristers have scooped up most of the cream?
The law is in many respects another country with its own sometimes impenetrable legal language, strange habits, arcane conventions, and, occasionally, unimaginable rewards. It is a world in which the leading lights — senior judges and highly paid QCs — take themselves very seriously indeed, sometimes complimenting one another on their allegedly enormous intellects in a self-regarding way, and assuming an easy, though hardly merited, sense of superiority over the rest of humanity.
This truism was perfectly illustrated when 1,000 top lawyers, no less, wrote a letter last year insisting that the EU referendum result was merely ‘advisory’ and not legally binding, and that only Parliament should decide whether Brexit should happen at all! I don’t doubt that many lawyers and judges are conscientious and decent people. One particularly admirable member of the judiciary was Sir Paul Coleridge, whose experience of the break-up of families led him to speak out in favour of marriage.
But such commonsensical views are rarely expressed by an increasingly progressive, politically correct judiciary. How interesting that Sir Paul was reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice, and found guilty of ‘judicial misconduct’. Shortly afterwards he retired.
Whatever the merits of individual judges — and the commendable efforts of the senior family law judge Sir James Munby to open the country’s most secretive courts to greater public scrutiny also spring to mind — it can scarcely be denied that the senior judiciary is increasingly throwing its weight around.
Such ‘judicial activism’ was encouraged by the establishment of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which allowed our judges to ‘interpret’ such loosely phrased ‘rights’ as privacy. Since then, they have gradually shaped a new restrictive privacy law. Yet if we are to have a privacy law, shouldn’t it be debated and passed by Parliament? (The Act incidentally, was seized upon by a group of Left-wing lawyers, including Cherie Blair, who formed the Matrix Chambers, and enriched themselves considerably through the pursuit of ‘human rights’ cases.)
It’s hard not to conclude that the introduction of the Human Rights Act has increasingly emboldened the judiciary to interpret the law as it sees fit.
There was of course an almighty hullaballoo recently when the High Court, subsequently endorsed by a majority in the Supreme Court, ruled that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 was triggered. Some senior legal figures were apparently stunned by criticism in this and other newspapers.
But if judges make rulings that have dramatic political consequences, they can’t reasonably expect to be immune from comment in the Press — which is what politicians experience daily.
And yet despite the rise of judicial activism (according to the American academic Ran Hirschl we now live in a ‘juristocracy’ rather than a democracy) senior judges in Britain continue to maintain that they are purely impartial and somehow above the political process, in which they nonetheless interfere.
But surely no human being can be utterly impartial or neutral. Values and moral judgments are inevitably shaped by experience.
It was illuminating, for example, to learn that several members of Britain’s Supreme Court have strong links to Europe or the EU. Lord Neuberger, who I accept is a very great man, is married to Lady Neuberger. A week before the EU referendum she declared online that ‘referenda [are] mad and bad’, and dismissed Ukip and Brexit as ‘just a protest vote’. Lord Neuberger’s sister-in-law, meanwhile, announced she has decided to apply for a German passport due to her shame over the referendum result, and criticised the ‘anti-immigrant’ nature of the Leave campaign.
While I entirely acknowledge Lord Neuberger’s neutrality, we surely have a right to know that his nearest and dearest hold such strong views.
In the United States, where the constitutional role of the Supreme Court has long been recognised, it is accepted that the most senior judges have political predilections. Indeed, judges in the U.S. Supreme Court are appointed by Presidents largely on the basis of their known political leanings.
In Britain we do things differently, and I would argue in this instance less well. We have a rising juristocracy — and since 2009 our own Supreme Court with its own grand building — and unaccountable judges, appointed in conditions of utmost secrecy, who like to maintain the illusion of impartiality.
Oddly, most politicians seem remarkably relaxed about the slow ebbing of power towards the higher judiciary. Indeed, whenever a problem arises, their first instinct is often to summon a judge.
The outcome is often unsatisfactory. In 2003, a wrong-headed inquiry — led by the solidly establishment figure Lord Hutton — into the unexplained death of government weapons expert Dr David Kelly exonerated Tony Blair and his side-kick Alastair Campbell. It’s findings left many sensible people gasping in incredulity.
Lord Saville’s investigation into the death of 13 civilians in ‘Bloody Sunday’ took 12 years, and cost £195 million. Lord Justice Leveson’s 2,000-page examination of the Press devoted just 12 pages to the internet.
Yet despite all the shortcomings I’ve mentioned, Shakespeare’s idea of bumping off the lawyers, although undeniably tempting, is hardly practicable. The rule of law is immeasurably precious, and can’t be preserved without an independent judiciary prepared to stand up to everyone, including overmighty politicians —which is not the same as shaping policy.
I’m even prepared to admit that lawyers are a vital element of a healthy and fair-minded society, though I’ve always avoided consulting them as far as possible, and strongly recommend everyone to do the same in the cause of a quiet and happy life.
But if lawyers are too little regulated and too often avaricious, and if judges are a condescending and out-of-touch cadre gradually aggrandising their powers, the rest of us cannot be expected to sit obediently and say nothing.
A thorough inquiry into the legal profession would, in fact, be an excellent idea. The only trouble is that in modern Britain it would be headed by a judge.
|Global Law Society the biggest gang stalker on the planet
Recent reports that a lawyer was being paid millions in legal aid to attack former soldiers fighting in Iraq, who reports claim, made their lives a misery show the unaccountable power and lengths lawyers will go to persecute, NOT only soldiers, but anyone involved in a court case in the UK but all areas of the world the law society's tentacles reach out to.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Plague of lawyers greed, self-importance and lack of scruples of UK’s last unreformed vested interest group
Disgraced lawyer agreed to pay ‘sweeteners’ to a fixer to bring murder claims against British troops
(Lawyers right across Britain pay legal aid 'sweeteners' to doctors, social workers, teachers, psychiatrists and a myriad
of dodgy expert witness's to destroy divorcing men with claims of domestic violence and with a mass media that fails to expose them)
Lawyer struck off because of reckless campaign of false and exaggerated allegations against soldiers
(Every day the same false and exaggerated allegations are used against divorcing men by the evil bastards who
have been getting away with murder funded by the state with legal aid)
Kick out hospital blood suckers, demands NHS Boss: Lawyers who tout for business in hospitals cost £440m a year - enough for 15,000 nurses
(A tiny fraction compared with the blood sucking of divorcing men these evil bastards have been getting away with)
Britain's legal mafia are screwing the country (heterosexual males) dry
How lawyers control the corporate rags (Just write it the way the lawyers want it written FAKE news)(VIDEO)
Scandal of the £millions spent on lawyers in inquiries while child abuse victims wait decades for LITTLE justice or recompense
'The Law Society is worse than a pit full of vipers'
Memorandum of Understanding between cops and law societies
Lawyer helped mastermind mortgage scams with their victims having to move out of their family homes after bailiffs knocked on their doors over the unpaid debts
The United Grand Lodge of England plays a major part in creating the laws and orders to the many masonic lawyers embedded in Britain's legal system and who operate from the Inns of Courts in London with a network of bar associations globally that are all part of their sinister network.
There is no easier way to destroy a person than to forcibly drag them into a court process either criminal or civil and use every dirty legal trick in the book to psychologically and financially destroy those hand picked for their form of gang stalking. The powers of the judiciary, police and bailiffs used to cause untold damage in the most barbaric way and where men are regularly found dead due to the extreme mental torture these evil bastards have been accustomed to getting away with.
The complicit media ALL have a media lawyer at the head of their editorial and why they have managed to block exposure of the biggest gang stalkers on the planet for so long. Only the concerted long term efforts of their victims has opened the doors to expose what will turn out to be the biggest murderous agenda in history with trillions being stolen to line the pockets of those using gang stalking as a mass murder tool.
|Lawyer made SOLDIERS life a misery (but what about divorcing men?)
Media only interested when those who kill for the crown are affected
|British homopaedo lawyer accused of child abuse had been charged in killing of teen
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Homopaedo lawyer linked to Archbishop of Canterbury
John Smyth QC is alleged to have carried out a series of brutal assaults
on young men in the 1970s
was linked to The Archbishop of Canterbury
No one, who has not been a victim, knows the depths this goes on within the legal mafia
A British barrister who allegedly abused boys at his Christian summer camps was later charged in connection with the killing of a teenage boy in Zimbabwe.
John Smyth QC left the UK after details of his alleged physical abuse of public schoolboys who attended the camps emerged in 1982.
Neither the Iwerne Trust, which ran the Christian camps, the Church of England nor Winchester College, whose pupils were among the alleged victims, reported the case to police.
Instead, Smyth was warned away from Winchester College by the headmaster and left for Zimbabwe, where he set up the Zambesi Mission and ran similar summer camps attended by boys from top public schools in the country.
Channel 4 News reported on Friday that Smyth faced charges in relation to the mysterious death of a 16-year-old boy at one of the camps in Ruzawi. The boy, Guide Nyachuru, was found in 1992 at the bottom of a swimming pool in the grounds of Ruzawi school, where the Zambesi camps were held.
In 1997 Smyth was charged in connection with the killing and with the alleged abuse of five boys. The barrister was also accused of swimming naked with Zimbabwean teenagers, showering with them in the nude and encouraging them to talk about masturbation.
One alleged victim told the broadcaster that Smyth administered savage beatings with wooden bats, in a chilling echo of the allegations made against him in Britain.
But Smyth, a former friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who has said he had no knowledge of any abuse claims, had the case against him dismissed a year later in Zimbabwe.
Court documents from the time reported by the broadcaster state: “The particular allegations are that [Smyth] made the complainants walk naked to the swimming pool at night; that he took showers with them in the nude; that he talked to them about masturbation and told them to be proud of their ‘dicks’ as Jesus Christ had one; and that he assaulted them on their ‘rear bare buttocks’ with a table tennis bat.”
Nyachuru’s sister, Edith, told the broadcaster that if the church authorities had reported Smyth to the police in Britain in 1982, “my brother wouldn’t meet the fate he met”.
Smyth left Zimbabwe in 2002 to move to South Africa, where he became a religious campaigner against gay rights. He has not responded to requests for a comment.
Hampshire police are now investigating the allegations of abuse in the UK. Smyth has not been arrested. It has emerged that police initially refused to mount an inquiry because the allegations were non-recent and there was a difficult issue of potential extradition of the suspect.
The Church of England told the Guardian it first reported the allegations to Cambridgeshire police in 2013, when an alleged victim came forward in the diocese of Ely. The report was given to the police liaison officer from the Cambridgeshire force. When nothing happened the diocese again reported the matter to the police in February 2014, the Church of England said. The church was told that there would be no investigation because the allegations were non-recent and there were difficulties regarding extradition of the suspect.
In 2014 a separate police report was made to Hampshire police – the area in which the alleged abuse by Smyth took place. Hampshire said at the time the case could not be pursued because the party who reported the allegations would not provide more details of victims or other information.
It was not until last month that Hampshire police reactivated the inquiry and is now carrying out an investigation into the alleged abuse of several teenage boys who attended the Iwerne Trust camps in the 1970s and 1980s.
Winchester College has defended its decision not to report the allegations to police when they first emerged in 1982.
A spokeswoman said this week no report was made to the police at the time, not least because parents of the victims felt their sons should be spared more trauma. The college had never sought to conceal “these dreadful events”, it said in a statement.
The school had acted as best it could “in accordance with the standards of the time”, but said that the allegations of further abuse “reveals the inadequacy of those standards”.
An inquiry carried out for the Iwerne Trust in 1982 by Mark Ruston, a Church of England vicar, described the “horrific” abuse suffered by the alleged victims. But neither the Iwerne Trust nor Ruston reported the case to the police.
According to the 1982 report, the boys were given beatings of 100 strokes as punishment for masturbation and 400 for exhibiting the sin of pride. One was said to have received a beating of 800 lashes for an unspecified sin.
The report says that eight of the boys received a total of 14,000 lashes, with two sharing 8,000 strokes over a three-year period.
One boy told Ruston, the document’s author: “I could feel the blood spattering on my legs.”
|Legal parasites poisonous lies exposed but only for soldiers
|Britain's legal mafia are screwing the country (heterosexual males) dry
Especially heterosexual males during divorce. As ever more marriages are doomed to fail
only ONE mob get rich quick!!!!!!!!!!
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Lawyers raked in £32.2bn in just ONE year: Figure goes up by a quarter in just five years
* The money that lawyers make has shot up by nearly a quarter in just five years
* Despite strikes over their pay levels the legal profession has been booming
* Lawyers earn almost 24 per cent more than the £26.0 billion they earned in 2011
The money that lawyers make has shot up by nearly a quarter in just five years, it was revealed yesterday.
Despite strikes by barristers over their pay levels and protests from senior lawyers who demand greater taxpayer subsidies, the legal profession has been booming, according to official figures.
They show that last year lawyers across Britain achieved a turnover of £32.2 billion – almost 24 per cent more than the £26.0 billion they earned in 2011.
The disclosure of the scale and speed at which lawyers have been increasing income drew scathing criticism from some critics of the exploitation of ‘no win no fee’ deals and other new means by which lawyers earn their fees. One said the legal profession has ‘lost its way morally.’
But bodies representing solicitors and barristers said their earnings were vital to the UK economy.
The cash rolling in to law firms and chambers means that the earnings of the legal profession are now higher than last year’s £27 billion Ministry of Defence budget for running the army, navy and air force.
At the same time numbers of lawyers working in England and Wales have been rising fast.
Figures provided by a legal watchdog say that in April 2015 there were 142,109 solicitors and 15,237 barristers. Together with paralegals and auxiliaries, the count shows there were 171,198 people working in the legal profession.
They far outnumber regular police officers – 126,818 last spring – or regular service personnel, 153,720 in April last year.
Just a decade ago, in 2004, there were 96,757 solicitors and 11,564 barristers, according to Whitehall figures.
This means that over the 10-year period – during which legal chiefs regularly complained about the financial pressures on their profession and the difficulties for young people in making careers in the law – the number of solicitors rose by 47 per cent, and the number of barristers by 32 per cent.
The figures on legal turnover and numbers were released by the Legal Services Board, which oversees legal regulation in England and Wales. Its turnover numbers were taken from figures gathered by the Office for National Statistics.
They were made public following years of protest from leaders of the legal profession over cuts to the taxpayer-funded legal aid budget, which were accused of impoverishing criminal lawyers and preventing the public from getting ‘access to justice’.
Former Justice Secretary Michael Gove abandoned the attempt to save £100 million from the £1.6 billion legal aid total at the beginning of this year. The plans would have meant reducing fees for lawyers representing suspects in police stations and slashing numbers of contracts for duty solicitors.
Lawyers’ campaigning against legal aid cuts included a series of strikes by barristers who protested that some of their number earned as little as £13,000 a year – although one picket line protest outside the Old Bailey was marred when one barrister joined in carrying a £1,100 Mulberry handbag.
Dr David Green, director of the Civitas think tank and author of a recent book on the direction of the legal profession, said that the spread of no win no fee deals and, more recently, ‘damages-based agreements’, had undermined the ethos of the legal profession.
‘It was never the case in the past that lawyers could do what they do now, take a percentage of the damages,’ Dr Green said. ‘It used to be considered wrong and barristers used to fight against the idea that they would be paid a share of the spoils rather than a straightforward fee.
‘The law has become a massive gravy train, and disputes are now regarded by lawyers not as an occasion for the application of justice but as an opportunity to make money. The legal profession has lost its way morally.’
However the Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, said: ‘The legal profession makes a vital contribution to UK PLC – the legal sector grew at 3.3 per cent every year for the last decade compared with 1.2 per cent in the wider economy.
‘An estimated 370,000 people are employed in legal services in the UK. Every 100 extra jobs in legal services supports a further 67 jobs to the wider economy.’
A spokesman added: ‘This healthy growth was influenced by a number of factors between 2012 and 2015. The main drivers include the increase in business transactions which often require expert legal advice. There has also been a significant hike in house sales which has boosted the amount of conveyancing work undertaken by law firms in a highly competitive market.’
Chantal-Aimée Doerries, chairman of the Bar Council which represents barristers, said: ‘It is important to recognise that whereas the overall income of the legal profession has risen, largely due to increasing demand for international legal services, there are sectors of the profession that are suffering, notably those that are committed to providing services to the economically weakest in our society.
‘As a result of successive governments making substantial cuts to legal aid for criminal cases, and the complete removal of legal aid in many social welfare and family areas, many citizens have been deprived of legal representation, and of meaningful access to justice. A further impact of the radical cuts to legal aid is that the professions are doing more than ever pro bono.
‘The Bar provides specialist advice and advocacy services to overseas and UK clients involved in overseas projects and business and a great deal of the legal sector’s growth is from international commercial work, which generates more and more of the UK’s GDP.’
|UK child sex abuse inquiry dropped investigation into senior lawyer over alleged sexual assault VIDEO
|Lawyers and judges behind the psychological murder of men across the globe
The biggest killer across the world of heterosexual men are the legal mafia. NOT terrorists or life threatening illness's like cancer or heart disease but the psychological and financial pressures the courts are putting on separated men.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Philippines 'lawyer' president Duterte tries to justify mass killings (Attacks fellow 'lawyer' Obama over mass killings of the black community)(VIDEO)
Psychological Murder: Death By Covert Abuse
The 8 Stages of Genocide
How do you define genocide?
We have, over more than two decades, been compiling the male suicide and homeless statistics of men and by a massive margin the psychological pressures freemason controlled courts impose on men are the biggest
causes of heterosexual male deaths.
There is no pressure more devious, sinister and pervasive than the enormity of the powers a global judicial mafia have given themselves through stealth, throwing out juries, and the power over what happens to men's wealth and their children. There are no physical scars to show but horrendous mental scars so extreme that men are regularly being found at the base of high buildings, across train tracks or next to an empty bottle of pills at their bedside. In Britain the vile tory government have been using the same psychological pressure on the poor, sick and disabled who en masse have been killing themselves when the meagre pittance of welfare has been cut using the most sinister of excuses SANCTIONS and where tens of thousands have been pushed over the edge.
The media they control continue to ignore the mountain of dead men's bodies that are massively growing as evil judges and lawyers continue to place enormous pressures on men being broken by a satanic oath swearing bunch of scumbags taking orders from the world's top terror group controlled out of the United Grand Lodge of England in London and the creepy royal the Duke of Kent behind a global tyranny robbing fathers and their children of their lives. NOTHING, repeat nothing anywhere on this planet comes close to the multi trillion dollar mass murder of men and their estates thanks to the evil system concocted to line the pockets of those controlling this monster.
BUT NOT IF WE CAN HELP IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The following dark lyrics by the band Gallows could have been written by any separated father
and the feeling that comes from being a victim of pure satanic evil.
"Misery" by Gallows video (Starts at 1.35)
Misery fucking loves me,
and I love her so.
She is the cold embrace of no escape,
when I'm left alone.
Misery fucking loves me,
and I love her too.
She is the dying breath of nothing left,
that I've become accustomed to.
There is nothing left for me,
I want to kill myself just for relief.
Black cloud, death shroud.
The weight of the world dragging me down.
I have nothing to offer anyone,
the hopes of the hopeless coming undone,
misery is my only friend,
she is a cold fucking snap,
but she is not the end.
Misery fucking loves me,
but I love her more.
She is the last light, the dark nights,
noose around my neck, the hole in the floor.
There is nothing left for me,
I want to kill myself just for relief.
Black cloud, death shroud.
The weight of the world dragging me down.
I have nothing to offer anyone,
the hopes of the hopeless coming undone,
misery is my only friend,
she is a cold fucking snap,
but she is not the end.
Misery fucking loves us,
AND WE LOVE HER TOO.
Misery fucking loves us,
AND WE LOVE HER TOO.
Misery fucking loves us,
AND WE LOVE HER TOO.
Misery fucking loves us,
AND WE LOVE HER TOO.
|Secret court allows corporations with ONLY three lawyers to control governments
FULL EXTENSIVE ARTICLE HERE
Investor-state dispute settlement (How in secret lawyers and corporations are controlling countries)
People are freaking out about the Trans Pacific Partnership’s investor dispute settlement system. Why should you care?
The sinister control the biggest terror group The Law Society have over countries and their governments
International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them.
Though most people have never heard of it, this justice system has the power to make entire nations fork over hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to companies that say their business was unfairly hampered.
Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, this legal system is written into a vast network of treaties that set the rules for international trade and investment. It is as striking for its power as for its secrecy, with its proceedings — and in many cases its decisions — kept from public view. Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.
An 18-month BuzzFeed News investigation into ISDS for the first time casts a bright light on the use of these threats. Based on reporting from Asia, Africa, Central America, and the US; interviews with more than 200 people; and inspection of tens of thousands of pages of documents, many of which have never before been made public, the series has already exposed how executives accused or convicted of crimes have turned to ISDS to help them get off the hook. Stories later this week will show how some financial firms have used ISDS to protect their most controversial and speculative practices and how the US, a major booster of the system, is surprisingly vulnerable to ISDS suits. Today’s story reveals how corporations have turned the threat of ISDS legal action into a fearsome weapon, one that all but forces some of the countries where these corporations operate to give in to their demands.
ISDS was originally devised as a forum in which to resolve conflicts between countries and the foreign companies that do business within their borders. But the system puts countries at a striking disadvantage.
Only companies can bring suit. A country can only defend itself; it cannot sue a company. Arbitrators who decide the cases are often drawn from the ranks of the same highly paid corporate lawyers who argue ISDS cases. These arbitrators have broad authority to interpret the rules however they want, without regard to precedent and with almost no public oversight. Their decisions carry extraordinary power. Often, countries are obligated to obey ISDS judgments as if they came from their own highest courts. And there is no meaningful appeal.
ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company’s demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.
ISDS was once an obscure quirk of international law, but it has exploded in recent years, as elite law firms have devised new and creative ways to deploy it. They have used ISDS to punish nations for limiting profits during economic crises, reforming tax and environmental regulations, or prosecuting executives accused of crimes.
But those are cases that actually proceeded all the way to arbitration. Often, say lawyers who are involved in the system, the mere threat of an ISDS claim is enough to achieve the same results. It’s like flashing a gun at a tense negotiation — better not to use it, but the guys across the table know it’s there.
“I do a ton of work that involves threatened claims that never go to arbitration,” said Michael Nolan, a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. “That’s much more common,” he said. “It’s much better to get things done quietly.”
“Every month I get a threat,” said Marie Talasova, a top lawyer for the Czech Republic’s Ministry of Finance. “We have to review the risks, how strong the claim is. We try to minimize the costs of the state.”
The power of such threats is at the heart of political debates over ISDS. Academics and activists argue that, behind closed doors, businesses can brandish the threat of ISDS to halt or roll back legitimate public-interest laws. These threats, they argue, are a much greater danger than the sliver of cases that go to arbitration and make it into public view. Supporters of ISDS shoot back, where’s the proof?
It’s hard to come by. In fact, a recent study for the Dutch government called finding such proof “nearly impossible.” The lawyers involved almost always have pledged confidentiality to their clients, and the threatened governments — afraid of appearing weak or sparking a public backlash — are loath to admit they capitulated. In fact, many ISDS supporters flatly say it never happens.
“Some people say states are always getting screwed or their public policy initiatives are being frozen because
they’re scared of investment arbitration,” said Jan Paulsson, a legend in ISDS circles who has worked as a lawyer or
arbitrator in dozens of cases. “I’d like somebody to show that to me. I’d really like somebody to show me an example
where that happened.”
|Being unable to sue a lawyer ensures they continue to provide stolen children to their paedo friends