UK COURTS OVERHAUL PLANNED TO HELP JURIES BAFFLED BY JUDGES…

JACK STRAWS MINISTRY OF INJUSTICE- JUST CAN’T WAIT TO DO AWAY WITH JURY TRIALS- MY THOUGHT ON HEARING THIS TODAY- WAS HERE WE GO- THE NEXT PHASE COMETH!

UK COURTS OVERHAUL PLANNED TO HELP JURIES BAFFLED BY JUDGES

|STOP THE NWO
10:57 (36 minutes ago)

UK COURTS OVERHAUL PLANNED TO HELP JURIES BAFFLED BY JUDGES

The biggest threat to British citizens are the crowns judiciary who have been slowly removing juries from all but the most serious cases and are using STAR chambers and secret courts to fleece the population of their assets, homes and children.

Two thirds of jurors do not understand what judges tell them about the law when they retire to consider their verdicts, according to a ground-breaking study into the secrets of the jury room. The findings will trigger an overhaul of the courts.

The investigation found that jurors frequently used the internet to read about trials on which they were sitting, risking miscarriages of justice. In 2008, juries in three Crown Court trials had to be discharged because they used the internet inappropriately. The study, to be published today by the Ministry of Justice, found that:

• all-white juries do not discriminate against black defendants;

• men sitting on juries are less likely than women to listen to arguments and change their minds;

• conviction rates in Crown Courts varied from 53 per cent to 69 per cent.

The study was carried out by Professor Cheryl Thomas, of University College London, and is based on 69,000 verdicts across 18 months. It concludes that juries are fair and efficient but that more could be done to help them to perform their task. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, recently raised concerns that in the internet age jurors will increasingly have difficulty in listening to evidence and receiving oral instructions.

Judges are likely now to look at how they can simplify the way they sum up and give directions and ensure that more juries get written aides-mémoire. Lord Justice Thomas, deputy head of criminal justice, said that work was under way to ensure that more written material was available, and that judges were being urged to give written directions in all but the simplest cases. Judge Keith Cutler, a senior circuit judge, said that the study vindicated juries and laid to rest several myths, such as their alleged failure to convict in rape cases. He said that written instructions may be extended to smaller trials.

“It may worry people that if jurors don’t understand then innocent people are being convicted,” he said. “But there is always the lee-way of the majority verdict.” He added that there was far more interaction between juries and judges now and that jurors felt able to ask questions when they needed clarification.

SOURCE
Jurors don’t understand judge’s directions, study finds/


INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info

THOSE WITHOUT GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WILL, IN TIME, DIE FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM . HISTORY IS LITTERED WITH MANY EXAMPLES.

PHONE IN ON THE RADIO- MAJORITY WHO HAD SERVED ON A JURY SAID ” WHEN THE JUDGE GAVE GUIDANCE TO THEM DURING THE CASE- EXPLAINING THE MEANING IN PLAIN ENGLISH – THEY UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL- THOSE WHERE THE JUDGE COULDN’T BE ARSED – FELT CONFUSED!

BETTER A CONFUSED JURER THAN SOME POLITICALLY CHOSEN PROFESSIONAL- WHOSE DECISIONS ON JUDGEMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE IDEOLOGY OF THE MASTERS’ THAT FILL HIS BOOTS!

THEIR AIM- CORPUS JURIS- THE FOURTH REICHS LAW!

Common Law versus Corpus Juris
Common Law is a body of concepts and laws in harmony with natural rights and justice. Corpus Juris (Latin for “body of laws”) is a system of judicial laws or tenets rooted in Civil Law and thus based on privilege and the whims of rulers. The following table contrasts the practises (in theory) of the two systems. I have added explanatory notes in the first column in an attempt to highlight the importance of each point and its relationship to and/or effect upon natural rights.

Table 1.0 Common Law versus Corpus Juris

COMMON LAW (UK/US system)*
CORPUS JURIS (European system)

No arrest without evidence – thus the citizen is free from harassment by the police and other government officials
Can be arrested without evidence

No holding of suspects for more than a fixed and very limited time unless charges presented in open court – this prevents governments from violating the liberty of citizens by unduly detaining them or holding them for reasons other than criminal. Habeas Corpus (Latin for “having the body”) is the right (formally recognised in the Magna Carta) to have the prime evidence against any suspect considered publicly by a court of law within a very short period of arrest (usually 24 hours).
Can be held indefinitely

Right to face your accuser and see evidence – anonymity of accusers would mean the government could fabricate testimonies; accusers (or witnesses) should be known so that they can be held accountable; the accused has no come back where this is not so. Evidence must be known to the accused or else government again could fabricate the same and give the accused no way to prove it false
Accuser may be anonymous; no right for accused to see evidence

Lay Magistrates

Right to trial by jury of one’s peers

‘Adversarial’ model

– under Common Law the really important matters are reserved to the people. It is the people of the country (represented by a jury) who act to provide a final legal check on the government by refusing to find a person guilty if they feel the law itself is either unjust or unjustly applied[14], and by limiting sentencing of criminals so that excessive punishments cannot be imposed. The people (peers) are sovereign and must make the final decision. To deprive a country of trial by jury is to deprive its people the last legal means of countering the government, leaving only the right of revolution as an option
Tried by professional judges

No right to trial by jury

‘Inquisitorial’ model

Right to an open court – a defendant must have the right to public witnesses in a trial or else government can act illegally in secret as well as bribe those who it knows will attend. Public and free access to a trial thus helps defend the defendant against miscarriages of justice
Closed court

Presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty) – Common Law always gives the benefit of doubt in favour of freedom. Unlike Corpus Juris it does not treat everyone like a potential criminal. This is perhaps the most important tenet, for with such an attitude of non-judgement many Corpus Juris laws would not have come into existence in the first place
Held to be guilty until proven innocent

Protection against double jeopardy (cannot be tried more than once for the same criminal offence) – Clearly this right protects the defendant from being repeatedly tried until he is found guilty and thus affirms his right to the presumption of innocence
Can be subjected to repeated trials on the same charges until found guilty

Burden of proof on prosecutor (it is up to the prosecutor to prove you are guilty) – This is an integral part of the right to presumption of innocence (see above). A part of the right to free speech is to remain silent. Under Common Law there is no requirement or force used on the defendant to testify against himself. In a very real sense it is the charges themselves that are primarily on trial and the integrity of those who have brought them. If the burden was on the defendant to prove himself innocent many accusations made by enemies (knowing the burden would not be on them) could be brought to bear, and the defendant would be continually oppressed with the task of defending himself with eventually no recourse to the resources necessary to clear his name
Burden of proof on defendant (you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence)

* Sadly even these have diminished (both in the US and UK) as governments have departed from the tradition of Common Law.
It is hoped from the explanations above, and self-evident truth, that the reader will see that Common Law is founded in the liberty of the individual and Corpus Juris on the destruction of the same.

History of the EU
The idea for a single European state did not end with the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire around the turn of the Nineteenth Century. Many individuals set out plans or notions for a united Europe including Leon Trotsky who wrote in 1917:

“The Federated Republic of Europe – the United States of Europe – that is what must be. National autonomy no longer suffices. Economic evolution demands the abolition of national frontiers…Only a Federated Republic of Europe can give peace to the world.”[15]
Many European, especially Italian, socialists and communists were taken with the idea of European federalism. This was spear-headed by communist writer and political activist, Altiero Spinelli, who was the chief writer behind the Manifesto for a Free and United Europe written not long after the start of the Second World War – and after the War that paper became the basic document of the European Federalist Movement. Spinelli was a powerful shaper of what today has become the EU, being the major force most recently (until his death in 1984) of the move to make the EU a state in and of itself to which Mrs. Thatcher, then Prime Minister of Britain, said “No! No! No!”. Spinelli was able to push forward his centralist ideas by promoting “subsidiarity” which turned out to be a meaningless concept and deception.[16]

Jean Monnet, a Frenchman and a senior figure in the League of Nations, was a proponent of the supranational state. He was disappointed, for instance, that the member nations of the League of Nations could exercise a national veto. In 1931 he published The United States of Europe, a collections of papers which addressed the idea of building a Federal Europe within the framework of the League of Nations. Monnet was supported by another senior member of the League of Nations, Arthur Salter. He was British and every bit as much a supranationalist as Monnet.[17]

Paul-Henri Spaak was one of the “founding fathers” of the EU. He openly described himself as a national socialist (Nazi) and considered Hitler’s achievements “magnificent”. Hermann Goering in 1940 made the first reference to a “European Economic Community” and Kaiser Wilhelm in this same year spoke of a “United States of Europe”.[18]

In fact the blueprint for the EU’s Treaty of Rome is believed by some to have been developed by Hitler’s European “architect”, Reinhard Heydrich, who called it “The Reich Plan for the Domination of Europe” (this was widely published in 1942 but copies mysteriously disappeared later so that few now exist).[19]

The following list (tabulated below) can be found in the work cited in the table title. It shows that the EU architects and the Nazis did share concepts and terminology.

Indeed the authors of this work, Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter, went as far as to write:

“To say that the European Union was based on the Nazi version of Europe or that there are parallels would be an understatement. The entire ‘European’ enterprise since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 (and given an enormous boost by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union) is an exact replica of the Nazi’s ideas for Europe…”[20]
However, it should be noted that the idea of a single Europe pre-dates Hitler’s Nazism,[21] though this is not to say that the same hidden interests[22] were not supportive of both Nazism and the European movement, perhaps supporting the former to facilitate the latter. But it was Monnet, at least visibly, who was to found and develop the structural beginnings of the EU and to be accredited as “the Father of Europe”.

Table 2.0 Comparison of Nazi ideas for Europe with modern policies of the EU. Taken from pages 124-125 of “Treason at Maastricht” (see “Suggestions for Further Study” at the end of this article).

HITLER’S EUROPE TODAY’S EUROPE
“Europäische Wirtschaftgemeinschaft” (European Economic Community) European Economic Community
Lebensraum (living space) European Space
Collective “access” to basic commodities Common energy, fishing and agricultural policies
European Currency System European Exchange Rate Mechanism
Europabank (Berlin) European Central Bank (Frankfurt)
European Regional Principle Committee of the Regions
Common Labour Policy Social Chapter
Economic and Trading Agreements Single Market
European Industrial Economy Common Industrial Policy
“The transformation of the laws of supply and demand.” Resistance to GATT
“Replacing capital with organised labour” European Works Councils

The Powers Behind the Scenes
There are two contending schools of thought on history. The first, and by far the most popular, is “The Accidental View of History” which holds that history is largely a series of unrelated events or events which are related only by accident or simple cause and effect; the second school of thought is “The Conspiratorial View of History” which holds that superintending forces have directed many of the important events of history.[23]
Is there evidence to suggest that there are “powers behind the scenes” which have supported and financed the organizations and individuals that have promoted the move toward modern European union? This question can undoubtedly be answered in the affirmative.

YOU BET YOUR SWEET LIFE ON IT!

FASCISM IS FASCISM- FABIAN FASCISM MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!!

“THE NEW DESPOTISM”………. WELL– NOT SO NEW TODAY- BACK IN 1928 IT WAS!!

TODAY IN WESTMINSTER IT’S BECOME THE NORM!!!

Advertisements

2 responses to “UK COURTS OVERHAUL PLANNED TO HELP JURIES BAFFLED BY JUDGES…

  1. In his book The New Despotism, Lord Hewart, written in 1929, revealed the serious nature of the Fabians involvement in the British government: “A mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intending to produce, and in practice producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places Government departments beyond the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts.”

    LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND

    LORD HEWART!!

  2. ALL COME ABOUT BY ACCIDENT OR PRE PLANNED…

    Legal Aid.

    In May 2000, a decision by the UK courts dramatically undermined the restraint the law did offer. Mr Justice Hooper turned down a legal challenge by the British Board of Film Classification, to a decision by its own appeal panel that the Board had been wrong to insist on cuts of explicit sequences before it would license a group of porn videos. As result, the BBFC had to rewrite its own guidelines, which until then had outlawed explicit penetration or ejaculation from the videos it licensed. When board members asked the public for their views, they were told – to their horror – that the public wanted to make their own decision whether or not to view such material.

    The outcome was that the Board had no option but to issue revised guidelines which they feared would open the floodgates. Just as they predicted, they found themselves licensing the kind of highly disturbing pornography that had previously been illegal. Moreover, these new guidelines rapidly became a benchmark for everyone else. So porn sites on the web started to circulate equally explicit material; top shelf magazines stocked by corner newsagents, started to include equivalent pictures; and TV stations such as Channel Four and Five are now also pushing to take advantage of this shift in practice.

    A Harmless Diversion?

    The argument is that pornographic images don’t harm anyone as they are merely fantasies. But fantasies of what? Of hurting women? Of humiliating them? Of treating them as dehumanised objects?As the philosopher Roger Scruton argues in his book `Sexual Desire,` fantasy has a tendency to remake the world in its own image. So the ‘harmless’ porn voyeur can turn into a rapist with a gun. For his fantasy is governed by monstrous myths and illusions – that women wish to be raped, that children are waiting to be awakened to sexual pleasure, or that violence is a natural right.

    Pornography objectifies women and reduces them to a commodity. Such dehumanisation affects the man’s behaviour, ranging from withdrawal of intimacy through to harsh treatment of women, to outright abuse. Dr Trevor Stammers, a GP who has often written about sexual problems, says most women he counsels whose husbands are into porn claim this has destroyed their marriages. The husband prefers to find sexual release from a computer because this doesn’t require any personal engagement by him. So he chooses physical sensation without love. ‘There is no doubt’, says Dr Stammers, ‘that as a result of using pornography such men become far more callous towards women. What they are seeking from porn is the illusion of power and control over them’.

    Research studies back up the suggestion that using pornography badly affects behaviour and relationships. American academics Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant have shown that pornography can diminish a person’s sexual happiness, that it damages beliefs about sexuality and attitudes towards women, and that it desensitises people to rape as a criminal offence. An American survey last year showed that more than 200,000 people were effectively addicted to porn through websites and associated chat-rooms. Victor Cline of the University of Utah has documented how men who become addicted to pornography, begin to want more explicit or deviant material, and end up acting out what they have seen.

    Isn’t that to ‘deprave and corrupt’ by any reasonable understanding of those terms? Yet far from being outlawed, porn is becoming mainstream behaviour. Sado-masochism has its own fashionable clubs. In Britain, Sodomy was made legal for women when the age of homosexual consent was reduced to 16yrs; what was once considered an intolerable assault on women, from which the law should protect them, has now become their ‘right.’ And urination during sex – the ‘golden shower’– is even discussed enthusiastically in teen magazines.

    Conclusion.

    What we once believed righteous has been dethroned by that which we once knew to be evil. A world turned on it’s head. The very mention that Christianity, or Islam, are the last bastions of virtue and morality causes the majority of people here in the West to `short circuit, ` and close down. The family unit is an endangered species. How many young men and women today even consider that a life of devotion and duty to each other, as man and wife, and to their would be offspring, as parents, is an end in itself? The whole concept of what was not so long ago taken for granted, has become somehow irrelevant and even to a degree redundant.

    By gratuitously portraying immoral and lewd acts, pornography undercuts or sabotages a persons efforts to discern between what is good and what is not. It is nothing less than a loss of God! There is nothing harmless about pornography. It is exploitive and corrupting. It can and increasingly does destroy relationships, perverting the natural expression of sexual intimacy into a voyeuristic activity. It poisons the mind and spirituality of the voyeur. It promotes selfish, greedy attitudes and teaches people to view others as objects fit only to satisfy their lust. It undermines all efforts to do good and maintain a clean conscience.

    Truly, pornography is Satan’s scourge against mankind, and a major `siege gun` in the Illuminati’s plan to dehumanise and depopulate. How far away they are from the setting up of their New World Order with it’s `New Feudal` social model and reduced serf class it is hard to say. What is for certain though is that our best hope and defence against this evil scheme is our faith in God and a renewed commitment to the institutions of marriage and family.

    For it is surely in these we can begin to build the `fortress` of our resistance.

    Reference:

    1] http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-rules-worldthe-origin-of-evil.html
    2] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_depopu.htm
    3] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/index.htm
    4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Whiting
    5] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
    6] http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr+Judith+Reisman&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_enDK310
    7] http://www.divorcewizards.com/Divorce-Statistics-Pornography.html

    http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/pornographic-conspiracy-destroying.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s