Subject: (no subject) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:14:53 EDT From: Hi! Great minds think alike. Check my mate Martin's stuff at:- http://website.lineone.net/~ichor Contract Law A unilateral (take it or leave it, accept or go without) offer of terms and conditions of business ( I trade my Common Law rights for a fixed fee, not quantum meruit) the mode of acceptance is by performance (invert Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball 1889). Thus, if you mug me in your knowledge of my terms and conditions of business the fee being £900,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 (in English Law there is no upper limmit for what one may charge for doing or suffering anything. Then you have accepted my offer by your performance of mugging me and owe me my fee unless you can show me the imperative strict and literal words in an Act of Parliament and not subordinate legislation that gives you an honest belief in your authority to mug me and for free. The sancitity of contract being the supreme public policy and public interest consideration of each and every Court protects my right to the fee and a strict and literal reading of only a primary statute is relevant and judicial interpretive bullshit is not permitted and judicial immunity is overidden when the judge performs acceptance of my offer due to the Law of Estoppel. Everyday citizens are mugged by sharp practise legal professions often employed by the state and fat cat corporations. Can you grasp the implications of this concept for the establishment? He has already been to Court and obtained favourable obiter dictum from Judges and these may be viewed at the above web page. My rights are my (intangible) property I may trade them and they may be stolen See Theft Act 1968. How many citizens have had their Common Law tradable rights taken away in the absence of imperative strict and literal words because they did not know how to trade them? Do you want to know more because your knowledge combined with ours could be enough to turn a legal system into a justice system, establishment wealth into unjust enrichment because those who are unable to prove their honest belief in their authorities in the manner described above must be pretending to believe they have those authorities and that is a fraud and fraud unravels everything. -------------------------- Subject: Re: interesting hypothesis Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:02:03 EDT From: KJONES671@**** Hi Ray Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'd like to say I was away on holiday but I' ve forgotten what one is. ARE THERE ANY TEST CASES ? I know of no judicial determinations or obiter dictum that causes me to doubt the efficacy of the hypothesis. And since the hypothesis is founded on an amalgam of previous test cases and well established legal principles I am confident there won't be, but since I'm not arrogant I'll keep an open mind. Can you fault it ? Feel free to give us some feed back, we like constructive criticism. Whilst I believe Martin has obtained favourable obiter, I know of no judicial determination that upholds the amalgam en toto. Since both Martin and I are owed a reckoning I suggest you stay tuned and await developments; I for one have more important things to do than just chatter. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. MY THOUGHTS After the revolt, the pigs fearing that in this new animal republic they had created all animals would become equal, recruited another farmer on the understanding that the animal parliament would run the farm, or rather the pigs as they filled the parliament. And they shared the same bed for their mutual self interest. Thus, the evil hierarchy was sustained and they grew fat at the trough of unjust enrichment kept full by the abuse of the other animals. Perhaps, in this sham of a democracy had all the animals been allowed to vote all animals would now be equal. As time passed the pigs where forced to become more covert in their abuse of the other animals due to the growing herd of middle class animals who with more resources provided by the struggle of their working class forefathers were better able to fight the tyranny of the pigs. As the pigs are corrupt so they corrupted and a new type of pig came to the fore. This was a pig not by birth but by nature, a middle class usually professional animal who attracted by the sight of the trough turned his arse to his fellow animals and the further he was able to get his nose into the trough the more he became a pig and a member of the pork mafia. And the other pigs made space for him at the trough as they needed the service of his professional and corporate sharp practice and fraud on a duty to maintain the staus quo. Since wealth ,power and privilege are common bedfellows it should come as no surprise to find that the pigs control the legislature, the executive and judicial, evading the doctrine of the seperation of powers; and in control of bodies corporate both public and private. Whilst it is now the case that all animals may vote, not all votes are equal due to a disproportionate electoral system, so it is not necessary for the pigs to be the greater number so as to control parliament. It may be true that we have government of the animals by the pigs for the pigs. And even if the pigs where not in control of the legislature they are sufficiently ensconced elsewhere to commit sabotage unless the legislature destroys them and as yet there appears no sign of this happening. So what must the other animals do ? Consider :- The pigs cannot rewrite the rules on the side of the barn without the sanction of the animal parliament. Therefore, when the executive pigs wish to do what the rules on the side of the barn do not authorise (perhaps because the legislature did not,cannot,or dare not make clear their intent) then they must mislead the other animals as to the meaning of those rules (statutory interpretation). This is often easy to do because most of the other animals are not lawyers. With a system based on the rule of law, knowledge of the law is power and power corrupts and again it would be no surprise to find this profession the most corrupt and its nose furthest into the trough. -------------------------------- Subject: H.COURT TRIAL OF THE MOST CORRUPT BRITISH JUDGES BY E.L.C. Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:29:18 EDT From: KJONES671@*** CC: ichor@*** Hi Ray IMPORTANT Below are extracts from an email to Martin (ichor@***) from Mr Kartar Badsha of the Enviromental Law Centre as follows:- The first, of the many public trials of the "Most Corrupt British Judges" a book by Dr. A Adoko, a barrister and a Papal Knight of St. Gregory the Great, will take place in the High Court on 02/08/2001. It is case number HQ 0100743. The book accuses 8 judges of perverting the course of justice. The 8 judges are former Chief Justice Bingham, Justice Morrison, Mr Justice Wright, Mr Justice Kay, Judge Mitchell, Chairman Donnelly and Chairman Booth. It also accuses the Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of the worst form of fraud. Before instituting in the High Court, a number of cases based on the content of the book, Dr Adoko made a formal complaint to both the Lord Chancellor and the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. He demanded necessary investigation of his accusations. Besides, he implored the authorities, in case any of his accusion atis found to be false, to prosecute him for contempt of court by publishing a book that scandalises the administration of justice. ....easy to prosecute him .......swore affidavit ...lodged in court.......stating his accusations true. The case against the Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,which is to be, heard in the High Court on Thursday, 02/08/2001 is published in Chapters 2 to 7 and in Chapter 17 of the book The Enviromental Law Centre which represented Dr Adoko in his complaint to the Lord Chancellor, invites all, in public interest, to attend the hearing...... . This sounds to good to miss, I'll probably be going, what about you ? What do you know about this case ? If you want a copy of the E.L.C. email then I'll need a snail mail address or a fax number. Best regards Keith Jones P.S. I THINK THEY MAY ISSUE A "D" NOTICE, ARE YOU EASILY INTIMIDATED ? ------------------------------------ Subject: Re: H.COURT TRIAL OF THE MOST CORRUPT BRITISH JUDGES BY E.L.C. Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:03:39 EDT From: KJONES671@*** Hi Ray Briefly: - I'll email you anything I find to do with "this sort of material" and prompt Martin and E.L.C. to do likewise if Martin has not already attended to this. - Martin and I expect to meet Dr Badsha 9am near H. COURT on 2nd August prior to hearing. Are you coming ? - I have not read Dr Adoko's book, I hope he has a sound case. - Have you read "Politics of the judiciary" by Prof J A G Griffith ? Best regards Keith Jones. ----------------------------------------- FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/judging.txt