VOMIT 20/98

Victims Of Masonic Ill-Treatment 16 May 1998

-o-o-o-

YET ANOTHER SCANDAL IN JUSTICE

It is a prerequisite of justice and is the law of the land that a UK citizen in the determination of his civil rights (including criminal cases) is entitled to a fair and public hearing in open court before an independent and impartial tribunal.

On Monday 11 May 1998 Geoffrey Scriven was due to argue his cases against 1. The Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Goff and 2. The Treasury Solicitor and one of his staff, John Evans. The hearing was before Master Turner.

On Friday 8 May Evans wrote a threatening letter to Mr Scriven. The letter effectively said "If you argue your case along the lines indicated I will seek to have you committed to prison and subject to a substantial fine. Evans was guilty of attempted blackmail and contempt of court.

Master Turner was the judge in the case. Here is what Master Turner said. "Having heard from Counsel (Alison Foster) and from Mr Scriven and there being present at his request three persons who have acted in the past as his Mackenzie friends and with twenty or more persons not admitted who wished to attend but, for the purposes of this hearing, would not have been able to come into my room in a convenient manner and with sufficient accommodation, I have to consider as a Master of the Queen’s Bench whether I have the jurisdiction to hear a writ in this form in the civil part of the Queen’s Bench Division".

Note that Mr Scriven was denied a public hearing in open court through no fault of his own. Note also that Master Turner should have stood down in case number 1 on the grounds that the Defendants could seriously influence Master Turner’s career and there was a clear conflict of interest. The case should have been referred to the Privy Council for referral to Parliament and the impeachment of the three defendants. Master Turner struck out both cases after stating that he had no jurisdiction. He allowed Mr Scriven five days to appeal and stressed that the five days ran from 11 May 1998 and not from the date of receipt of a copy of the order which, he said, would be posted to the parties. He also directed that the appeal would be to a judge in chambers. How can Mr Scriven submit a copy of Master Turner’s order with his appeal if he does not have possession of the order? In view of this difficulty why did Master Turner not allow more than five days for the appeal to be lodged. Why did Master Turner order the appeal to be heard before a judge in chambers when his excuse for denying Mr Scriven a public hearing was that there was insufficient accommodation in chambers to permit the presence of members of the public?

We need not point out to you that Master Turner and Evans have amply demonstrated that Mr Scriven’s cases have merit. They also have serious implications for the judiciary.

Further the skeleton argument presented by Counsel Alison Foster demonstrated that, if Mr Scriven manages to lodge an appeal, the Treasury Solicitors and the Attorney General are going to silence Geoffrey Scriven with a Civil Proceedings Order pursuant to Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended. Foster was second choice as Counsel presumably because the original choice put reputation before ambition.

Normally a decent Lord Chancellor could clean up the judiciary. In this case he is a defendant and is not the sort of person who puts other matters before self-interest. The Prime Minister has been asked to intervene even if it means sacking his Lord Chancellor. All miscarriages of justice are the fault of MPs and finally of the Prime Minister himself.

-o-o-o-

BILDERBERGER BLAIR AND SIERRA LEONE

This breach of United Nations sanctions has more to do with the Sierra Leone diamond mines than it has to do with restoring the democratically elected government as claimed by Blair of the fork tongue. The question is "Why did the UK not seek a UN mandate before authorising the provision of arms and personnel to overthrow the military dictatorship?" How could there be a peaceful restoration of the democratic government if UK was providing arms and military personnel? Who ever heard of a democratically elected government in an African state where most of the electorate couldn’t spell their own names? Time and time again we have seen these democrats sell out their assets and their people to foreign governments in order to build up their own bank balances throughout the world or buy gold plated beds in London (Kwame Nkrumah)? They use the army to suppress opposition. The army rebels usually because soldiers are being paid about 5p per day to murder their own people while the politicians live a life of luxury. The democrats of Sierra Leone do not have a monopoly on corruption. They must share the spoils with the foreign politicians who keep them in power. Sierra Leone diamonds will be lodged in deposit boxes in the Seychelles. This is the dirtiest government since that of Harold Wilson’s. Its Prime Minister is even more slippery than Wilson was.

What is the sabre rattling Blair going to do next to distract attention from his failures on the domestic scene? Will he and Shell stop helping the military junta in Nigeria to violate human rights while they pollute the countryside as a result of their greed for oil revenues?

We have previously reported how a secluded site adjacent to our property was used for the importation and distribution of cocaine. Around 1988 we were surprised to see new army vehicles, towing guns, being weighed at the site. Uniformed soldiers were in attendance. Within the past two years army surplus equipment from DTEO Shoeburyness arrived here for weighing after hours, in highly suspicious circumstances. The driver of the vehicle warned us that the Ministry of Defence could be dangerous if we kicked up a fuss. Now we wonder whether the site was originally intended for the clandestine shipment of armaments before graduating into a cocaine distribution centre.

INDIA’S NUCLEAR TESTS

The USA and the UK are spending billions updating their weaponry including delivery systems for nuclear warheads (Trident). This enables them to dictate to countries that are nuclear free. The bullyboys are saying, "Do as we say not as we do". There are reports of a sinister connection between Blair and a secret organisation that allegedly put him in power. It may turn out that the Indians will do more for democracy than the bullyboys will.

LETTER FROM JOAN T ARMSTRONG

Letter dated 5 May 1998 from Joan T Armstrong, 79 Wilbraham Road, Walkden, Worsley, MANCHESTER M28 3LL to Robert Nicholas, The Court Disservice (sic), Southside, 105 Victoria Street, LONDON SW1E 6QT

Comment:- We don’t know why people keep writing to these charlatans. They have skins like that of a rhinoceros and the integrity of Joseph Goebbels. The fact that we never write to them does not inhibit them from writing almost daily to us even although they are aware that we file their letters unopened.

The transcript racket is a lot worse than Joan indicates. Doctoring is essential in a corrupt legal system. Litigants are entitled by law to a fair and public hearing in open court before an independent and impartial tribunal. This, per se, means that there is no impediment to the court services providing, immediately after a hearing, the recording of the proceedings either on tape or on CD. If fair ‘s fair Blair is in the least concerned about justice he can arrange for such recordings to be provided NOW. As a barrister he is part of the system that deals in lies.

LETTER FROM POW TRUST (See above) 7 May 1998

To Sir John Bourne, Director General, National Audit Office, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, LONDON SW1W 9SP.

Note:- Legal Aid was introduced to line the pockets of solicitors and barristers and not to promote justice for the poor or even for the rich. For example the Adsheads lost their home simply because they had a home to lose. There are so many solicitors and barristers in Parliament that it is highly unlikely that the Legal Aid frauds will be exposed. Didn’t the President’s wife get paid from the Legal Aid fund when she fought for lesbian rights in the European Court? How is it that the European Court manages to hear innocuous cases when the British official with the E C H R weeds out truly horrendous cases?

-o-o-o-

HIGH NOON FOR GEOFF HOON, MP

-o-o-o-

Published by J M Todd, Misbourne Farmhouse, Amersham Road, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks. HP8 4RU