Ed Stratton - Papers Leaked Concerning His Judicial Review

[Indicaderek 396]

Some good news SB, that hole they dug just keeps getting bigger and bigger

Good work mate, basic admin mistakes on their behalf can only make you look all the better, not to mention misrepresenting your argument.

Hows the info request coming along with the redacted sections of the command paper thingy you asked for btw?

[Scouser 425]

I never imagined that they would alter a person's defence to make it seem hopeless.

A friend of mine was held in contempt of Court when he queried a Judge as to whether he was on his Judicial Oath that day, because... the Judge *told* the defendant he could *not* plead 'not guilty'.

For asking this Question, about 8 riot POLICE were called to the Court... no shit.. just for asking a question!

What I'm saying is, the Judge directed the defendant as to what his plea should be, this is in direct violation of his Judicial Oath.

Additionally, a witness in the Public gallery, upon witnessing my buddy being forcibly arrested & handcuffed for contempt of Court, also asked the Judge the same question as a 'concerned member of the public who has witnessed a miscarriage of Justice'... the Judge then tried to order his arrest for Contempt too!

But the guy said 'Sir, I'm in the public gallery, there's nothing you can do, I'm going to call the POLICE and have you arrested for impersonating a Judge' (this was said on the basis that the guy witnessed the Judge not confirm that he was under his Oath).*

We are awaiting the Court transcripts for that day.

* Incidentally, it has since been confirmed to me by the Judiciary that Judges are *always* considered to be under their Oath from the day they are appointed & sworn in until the day they leave or are promoted e.t.c.

Whether this gives favour to the Judges actions that day of holding someone in contempt for questioning their authority is a moot question compared to the fact that this now confirms that on that day the Judge did indeed violate his Oath by directing the defendant in what to plea.

I was not there but I was told his words were to the effect of (after mulling over the charge sheet) ".. there's no possible defence for these charges, you can't plead 'not guilty'". (b.t.w before the defendant entered the Court room, the Judge was witnessed reading aloud the charges then smacking his hands together and rubbing them as he announced that the case was under way... just what old Siggy Freuid would have said to this I can only guess )

Judges under Oath can *not* practice law, they are arbitrators, mediators and primarily, administrators, they're not there to instruct the defendant what to plea, that's what lawyers do!

Sorry to get a little sidetracked, but as you see, they will act ultra vires [beyond their power/Jurisdiction] if they think they can get away with it.

[sunshine band 930]

Some good news SB, that hole they dug just keeps getting bigger and bigger

Good work mate, basic admin mistakes on their behalf can only make you look all the better, not to mention misrepresenting your argument.

Hows the info request coming along with the redacted sections of the command paper thingy you asked for btw?

Sorry to go off topic here, but the matter is set for an oral telephone hearing with the Home Office making their case about what can and what cannot be discussed. I think Casey is sufficiently impressed with the ICO to let them get on with it as his presence might slow things up (because they cannot say what they want to say about why they cannot let us see it with him listenning).

[burnt_toast 23]

Some good news SB, that hole they dug just keeps getting bigger and bigger

Good work mate, basic admin mistakes on their behalf can only make you look all the better, not to mention misrepresenting your argument.

Hows the info request coming along with the redacted sections of the command paper thingy you asked for btw?

Sorry to go off topic here, but the matter is set for an oral telephone hearing with the Home Office making their case about what can and what cannot be discussed. I think Casey is sufficiently impressed with the ICO to let them get on with it as his presence might slow things up (because they cannot say what they want to say about why they cannot let us see it with him listenning).

Since Ed's case was used in Alans case in Manchester, does this affect Alan too?

[sunshine band 930]

Well they based Alan's case ENTIRELY on Ed's judgment and failed to examine anything at all, a complete waste of time at Manchester admin court. Talk about amateur hour there, I had a letter recently from the manchester admin ct telling me about Alan's options, just full of mistakes about the law. I also now know that the irritable court lawyer there also messed up big time. Apart from using Ed's case like a Jehovah with a bible, ignorring all of our detailed comments about the errors, the differences and the new evidence, she then depicted Alan's case as concerning apoint of law in respect of the Human Rights Act - we made it very clear that we did not wish the court to address any human rights points at all, and were relying on only common law claims. You see, what we are up against is people who ought in my view to be bringing out the claim, trying to tease out what it is, actually help the claimant if necessary where it would assist justice, and let the court form a view - instead they cannot suspend their cynicism, and this combined with their lazy approach and lack of ability to grasp the argument means that instead of introducing people's work properly, they buitcher it and it's strangled at birth. This being said, the buck stops with the judge so it's a plague on all their houses.