COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO ALLOW THE DEFEND BREXIT CASE TO HAVE A HEARING
Above are the images of the Order that I have
just received, which disappointingly confirms that our case is not going to be
allowed to have even a single hearing. (Apologies for the way it has reproduced on this blog!)
The tone of the reasons for the Order is more
reasonable than the previous two Orders that we have had in this case. I do
however find it interesting that this Judge has come out with yet another set
of inconsistent reasoning as to why our case would not succeed. In my view, as we have now had three
different Judges, all of whom have given a different basis on which they are
refusing the case. Speaker Bercow had a
yet further different view. Between them
they have vividly shown why this is a case that should have actually been
properly heard. Proper legal argument
should have been listened to, so that the Court could have come to a proper
reasoned decision. That would have been
the way that a Judicial Review decision would have been dealt with until very
recently.
What we have however uncovered here is, not
only the extent of politically biased personal agendas within the Judiciary,
but also a drastic deterioration in the general standards of fairness and of
open justice in our country. This bodes very ill for the future of a country
which once had one of the very best justice systems in the world. The English
justice system was seen as the very model of the best system of the idea of the
“Rule of Law”.
I would say that although I do not know Lord Justice
Davis, but he must mix with very different people to any that I meet or hear
from on social media, since I have yet to come across anybody who thinks that
it is right and proper that a Judge who has signed up to the European Law
Institute could fairly hear a Brexit case or be considered anything other than
biased on the issue of Brexit.
In the circumstances I have now taken this
case as far as it can possibly go in the England and Wales jurisdiction.
I am continuing with our Application to the European
Court of Human Rights on the basis that they would not give us a “public
hearing”, the case was not dealt within a “reasonable time”, given its
importance, and also that we did not get an “impartial” tribunal.
I am also pursing the Courts to provide
disclosure under the General Data Protection Regulations of the Ministry of
Justice’s Case Summary on the front of the Court file.
I have so far only encountered obstructionism,
which suggests to me strongly that the Judges have been given a biased steer on
this case by the Case Summary on the outside of the file before they even start
to read the papers. If this wasn’t so
there would be nothing to hide!
What do you think?
I know many of us may not be God fearing people but I do believe these will stand before the one true judge and will be forced to explain their decisions. They are also judging themselves by their actions and will receive just reward for their crimes.
ReplyDeleteI am a God fearing person and we all will stand before Him one day. It is because our politicians consider themselves to be 'all knowing' that we are in this mess. I wonder what excuses they will offer when asked to account for their actions? I n the meantime where can we go for truth to be pronounced and promises adhered to?
DeleteThe Rapture will happen first. All true believers in the Holy Trinity (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) will be taken temporarily into the skies. The non believers will be left on earth. God Almighty will release his wrath upon mankind immediately afterwards and will allow the Antichirst to take full control which will be the start of the seven year Tribulation Period. There will be many wars, mass destruction, poverty, famine and disease. Less than a third of the world population will survive. Jesus will return to fight the Antichrist and remove satanic control from Earth. All satanists, along with satan will be thrown into the Lake of fire for good.
DeleteFrancis
I totally agree with you Robin especially when you say "I have yet to come across anybody who thinks that it is right and proper that a Judge who has signed up to the European Law Institute could fairly hear a Brexit case or be considered anything other than biased on the issue of Brexit". Lord Jusice Davis is either being willfully blinkered here or taking us all for fools. I admire your tenacity and will continue to watch and support this case as it makes its way through the ECHR.
ReplyDeleteThe whole judicial service is corrupt, along with the majority of politicians. We have witnessed first hand how the Big Brother system has paid for the democratic vote to be overturned.
ReplyDeleteYes they certainly are biased, I worry for future cases with just as valid causes who will end up in prison without trial for disagreeing with the ruling as with Pakistan, China etc. I am keen to hear what the European Court of Human Rights will say on this. Absolute disgrace, that's why I voted to leave the EU because of ECJ control.
ReplyDeleteA very sad situation Robin after all your hard work, but you are the proverbial bulldog of our country, and as Churchill said "Never never give up". Thank you for your efforts and hope for more positive news. Regards Ann Hardman.
ReplyDeleteI think everything about brexit, right from the beginning, has been thwarted by remainers, and this includes MP's, judges, courts etc, they are all in it together. Boris johnson did his best to get a deal, thwarted again, you yourself have worked really hard to get a case against them, again thwarted. it is disgusting. i am just going to vote Brexit and Nigel Farage, I will never vote for the other parties again.
ReplyDeleteJudmas!
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/jEIuXMG
How very fitting to the 322 votes against Boris (May/ Merkel rotten) deal!
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't the Lord Chief Justice Cox insisting that the judge hears this case after Boris have approval for this?
ReplyDeleteIt stinks of corruption at its highest level, I feel that this is being brushed under the carpet just like when Heath illegally took us into the Common Market in the 70's that had a 30 year D notice put on it and I feel this case has too.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite ironic that the Gina miller case got a supreme court hearing within days and again a panel of judges with direct EU links. I didn't think judges were allowed to sit on cases where they may have a predguditial opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe Law is only Law when it suits 'the system'..
ReplyDeleteRobin,
ReplyDeleteIt pains me to point out that the entire judiciary and Courts system is now corrupt.
The other day I was a defendant in the County Court under the Small Claims Track. The Claimant was a Debt Collector (I had defaulted on my credit card agreement during a period of illness and reduced earnings). Anyway the claim had not been particularised correctly so I decided to resist the entire claim on that basis and that the imposition of default charges and interest were unfair under Regulation 5.1 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. I tried to mediate but they declined, etc etc. The district judge criticised the claimants for being reckless, poor administration, writing contradictory statements and for not completing the claim correctly. The Debt collector in its literature said that it had bought the credit agreement and that would normally imply that it was subject to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 together with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the newer Consumer Rights Act (2015). The claimants did NOT object to my defence but stated that I owed money to the balance stated. The judge questioned me over the Law of Property Act (1925) and whether or the Claimants could pursue their claim under that Act. I said "Yes, the claimant could make a claim pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925" and he agreed, the claimant agreed and the judge said OK the claim succeeds and I agreed subject to other acts. I argued that the the debt collector acquired the agreement in that the consumer rights were also transferred and the judge said he would have to consult the law books. After the interval he came back and said that a debt collector was not a money lender and my submissions over unfair terms were therefore refused. He said that the unfair terms and consumer rights applied DIFFERENTLY to the debt collector in that they could not add extra charges, late payment charges etc etc. He stated that the consumer rights therefore had NOT been transferred from the credit card firm to the debt collector and that my defence would therefore fail. Fortunately I was only liable for the County Court Fixed Costs and balance.
Robin normally if a claim is not written correctly it is struck out. Why not when the claimant is a huge debt collector? Something stinks.
Francis
Its now a matter for the public rather than the courts, the State is the servant of the public and not otherwise. The public need to set up a Constituents Court of Inquiry into the judiciary as a matter of an extra ordinary circumstance, whereby the judiciary are refusing to carry out their proper and constitutional purpose. Who do we know that can start to organize an extra ordinary inquiry by the public? Lets not forget the maxim "our sovereign the people", there is no such thing as "our sovereign the judiciary", and parliament is sovereign in title only. Lord Coke having said prior to the Petition of Right 1628, that parliament could not give the title "sovereign" to the King, because they "were never possessed of it". The public are the true sovereign power.
ReplyDelete