Monday, December 10, 2012

Petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary now lodged at Scottish Parliament, petition will be considered by msps in 2013

Courts Judges Scotland montage

Like others in public life, Scotland’s judges, sheriffs & others in the courts should be required to declare their interests. Petition PE01458, published on the Scottish Parliament’s website in late October which calls for a publicly available register of interests for Scotland’s judges & sheriffs has now closed for signatures from the public, and has now been lodged with the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee who will go on to consider the petition at a later meeting.

The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Diary of Injustice would like to thank the forty one people who signed the petition, journalists from the Sunday Mail newspaper who reported on the petition, those of you who also posted comments on the Scottish Parliament’s website about the aims of the petition, and of course the members of the New Zealand legislature, particularly Dr Kennedy Graham MP, the author of the bill in the New Zealand Parliament which gave Peter Cherbi the inspiration to author a petition along similar lines in Scotland.

If any of you feel you have further comments or experiences relating to judges, the interests, and how their undeclared interests or known interests have impacted on cases in the courts or justice system, or feel you have other pertinent information which you would like the Petitions Committee to consider when they call for oral evidence, please send them in to the Petitions Committee via their email at petitions@scottish.parliament.uk and also copy us in at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Also, if any of you feel you would like to appear at the Scottish Parliament and give oral evidence relating to the aims of the petition, please email Diary of Injustice.

A reminder of our previous coverage of the petition : ANYTHING TO DECLARE, M’LORD ? Holyrood Petition calls for a Register of Judicial Interests for Scotland’s Judges & Sheriffs

Courts Judges Scotland montage

Judges wealth, links to big business, banks, law firms etc should be declared in register of interests. SCOTTISH JUDGES should be required to declare their financial wealth along with money making ventures, business & professional relationships & any other relevant links including those impacting on criminal trials, in a published REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS, according to A PETITION filed at the Scottish Parliament by legal blogger & contributor to Diary of Injustice, Peter Cherbi

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary which is now open for signatures from the public, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Diary of Injustice has featured coverage of the petition in earlier reports, Register of Interests for Judges.

The petition goes on to report how the Parliament of New Zealand is debating legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Mr Cherbi says he believes it is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

New Zealand MP, Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill on judicial interests states : It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

Mr Cherbi said in his petition : “I believe the same aims of the New Zealand legislation as quoted above, are compatible with the public interest in Scotland and to promote the due administration of justice by providing the public with greater transparency within the judicial system.”

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is an example of similar legislation for a register of judicial interests in New Zealand, bought to the New Zealand Parliament by Dr Kennedy Graham.When asked whether a register of interests existed for Scottish judges, the Judicial Office for Scotland said “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

However in an age of transparency where the decisions of Scottish judges affect all our lives, whether the case be criminal or civil, there must be a requirement for all public servants particularly those in positions of such importance as the judiciary to submit their interests to a publicly available register of interests.

Towards a New Courts Act - A Register of Judges Pecuniary InterestsNew Zealand’s Law Commission issued paper supporting a register for judges interests. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Commission has argued for a wider remit to include all officials whose positions given them potential to influence a case to be included in such a register of interests.

The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.”

The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded
here :  NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scotish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims, exposed in a Diary of Injustice investigation into Judge’s financial fiddles, here : CAREER CROOKED : Investigation reveals Scottish judges are CONVICTED CRIMINALS, Drunk Drivers,Tax Dodgers & alleged BENEFITS CHEATS

In response to an earlier Freedom of Information Request from Diary of Injustice, the Head of Strategy & Governance for the Judicial Office for Scotland pointedly REFUSED to provide any details of information disclosing whether any members of the judiciary in Scotland have declared or informed the Scottish Court Service in the past three years of :

Any offshore investments, Unrecorded cash transactions, Payments for outside work, Any application of “tax efficient” schemes to avoid paying taxes, Associations or meetings with convicted criminals, Vehicle accidents,  criminal charges, or being interviewed by Police.

The reasons given by the Judicial Office for refusing to disclose key details on what Scots judges are getting up to, are that much of the information requested is held by an ‘arms length body’ created by the Scottish Court Service which holds such information on behalf of the Lord President, rather than passing it directly to him.

The on-going investigation by Diary of Injustice into members of Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary. More on these findings can be read in an earlier article here : Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on the petition for a register of Judicial Interests, here :

Petition to hold judges to account Sunday Mail November 04 2012Petition to hold judges to account

by Russell Findlay
Sunday Mail November 04 2012

A legal campaigner has urged MSPs to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges.

Peter Cherbi has secured a Scottish Parliament petition calling for all sheriffs and judges to declare financial interests and hospitality.

The legal blogger from Edinburgh, said: “Like those in other areas of public life, members of the judiciary should be required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise.

“This would increase transparency and help to ensure public confidence in their actions and decisions.

“It has been suggested to me some judges have offshore investments for the purpose of tax avoidance while others may have shares or other connections to businesses.”

Cherbi was inspired by a similar proposed law which is being debated in New Zealand.

The closing date for the online petition is December 7.

Judges were issued with ethical guidelines which were drawn up by senior judges headed by Lord Osborne two years ago.

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “We do not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.”

45 comments:

  1. Good idea I support you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want the big story check out financial connections between the courts and RangersFC..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well if you think about it most judges have been or are rich lawyers from their previous careers in the legal profession so looking at it that way it is only fair they should declare all their interests in public.

    PS Nice catch on the benefits cheat judge.I wonder what the judiciary think of you after that one!

    ReplyDelete
  4. As Madison wrote 'all government rests on opinion'. Dissent replaces consent if a government is voted out of office. This to some extent is legitimate power.

    But Judges and the judiciary in general. They are powerful actors, not accountable, only to themselves, no legitimacy without any means of the public ensuring they are not corrupt. Just like the Law Society and its tentacles. It has total omnipotence over the public because is not a 'professional union' to quote MacAskill. It dominates through secrecy.

    The judiciary have designed this perfect system to keep their activities hidden from the public too ensure their criminal activities are covered up by their brothers. What we are witnessing is the decay of their secret protection racket, because nothing this rotten can survive forever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like others in public life, Scotland’s judges, sheriffs & others in the courts should be required to declare their interests.
    ================================
    What do we know about them? NOTHING. And if we are kept in the dark public mistrust will increase. But a word of caution. Remember the new so called independent quango, the SLCC? They want to fool us into believing protection for the public is happening. But more protection for the public means less legal aid and lawyers & judges under tighter scrutiny. We don't expect justice from them any more. We know they are not fit to work in a justice because when the public, especially the individual is hammered to to pulp to save lawyers carers. They are a public facade of justice which covers their organised criminal activities.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes indeed I have something to say about this because the sheriff who heard a case against me involving a building firm and their rubbish work on my home has relatives working for the same building firm and nothing was said about it in the court AND he ruled in favour of the builder!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Might be just as well if the judges agree to do this.Opposition to the idea will sound like they have something to hide which does seem to be the case from your stellar reporting techniques!

    ReplyDelete
  8. THEY WANT YOUR CASH : Scotland has highest legal aid budget in EU, yet lawyers chant “save justice” and strike to demand more for them, less for you.
    ===============================
    They want your cash and make no mistake they will use it to ruin people. For example Legal Aid for litigation. They get your money to destroy Health & Safety at work. Say your daughter is injured. Her lawyer takes her case against her employer. Her employer, lawyer, doctors all insured by RSA.

    Say you want to sue a lawyer. You will not get a lawyer or Legal Aid. You cannot sue a High Court Judge. But they can sue you. A lawyer can sue you. It is no accident that members of the public cannot sue lawyers. It is no accident that they can steal all you have and be cleared of any wrongdoing. They have designed the legal system so that you cannot get justice against lawyers. So your assets are the legal professions if they decide to help themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This could also be useful in criminal cases considering we seem to have judges who themselves have unpublished criminal records that may be secretly known to the prosecutors or criminals in front of them and used to twist the outcome of a trial

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Judicial Office for Scotland:

    “We do hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.” Judicial Office Criminals.
    ---------------------------------
    Secrecy that is the base of their power. There is nothing honest about the judiciary, a secret controlling Masonic state.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A LAWYER said...

    Oh i see you have supporters Mr Cherbi but I'm not one of them. WE CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE.

    The sooner we get rid of you and all your kind [HE HATES CLIENTS] the better for us. DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH OLD BOY?

    Pity someone wouldn't blow you up [NASTY] along with the rest of these nutcases [HE IS A PSYCHIATRIST TOO] and your friends. NUTCASES, MY MY YOU ARE A MATURE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PANTS. WE LOVE YOU TOO,
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

    HE WANTS TO SILENCE RUINED CLIENTS SO THAT HE AND THEY CAN RUIN MORE PEOPLE. AND AFTER THAT HE WANTS US ALL BLOWN UP. CHARMING, TRUTH HURTS MR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT SAYING WE ARE WRONG. YOUR KIND ARE WRONG AND DISTURBINGLY OUT OF TUNE.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well folks tell all of your friends so that they know what lawyers really are. If they cared about their clients like the Legal Aid money pot their reputations would be better for it. But you are all only money to them. And if you complain at least one of them wants to blow you up.

    Justice costs lawyers money, that is all they use you for money.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Head of Strategy & Governance for the Judicial Office for Scotland should be sacked on the spot for failing in their primary duty, which is to act in the best interests of her employers (the Scottish Public) and not privileged pecuniary interests?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The state our Judicial system is in is a joke and the parties involved throughout it are not fit to be involved and should be thrown out onto the street?

    It's gone way past needing reform. It is irrevocably corrupt and discredited, whereby the amount of people who still have faith in the system, you can count on the fingers of one hand?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I wonder how many people have reported lawyers to the Law Society of Scotland and been told

    The Society refuse to investigate but you can complain to the Ombudsman.

    Not the exact wording but it was along those lines. What they actually meant but could not write was

    Report your lawyer to any bureaucracy in Scotland. We want you to do this because they are all under Law Society control. We have the perfect system for hiding lawyer corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Like others in public life, Scotland’s judges, sheriffs & others in the courts should be required to declare their interests.
    =============================
    GREAT IDEA, WHO CAN WE TRUST TO MONITOR IT IN THIS CORRUPT COUNTRY?

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20668953

    No. A snoopers charter.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Although I support this 100% I foresee a big problem with a register of interests because it seems clear the judges are already lying toads so how can we expect them to be honest and put in everything they are required to?Who is going to oversee it and more importantly who can we trust to oversee it (only you I think) and if they dont disclose and are caught out later this will presumably have a huge effect on any cases they heard (probably one of the reasons there is no register of interests at the moment)

    Policing it is going to be a full time task just look at how the mps/msps abuse their register of interests and rules on expenses even after the expenses scandal and even the office monitoring it all has suffered a few resignations over how the rules are being bent.

    Anyway sounds like you know what you are doing so keep at it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah but if the register is public and these judges dont comply then it should be a criminal offence and anyway its easy to see these judges all have big houses lots of cars etc so they arent short of a penny time to declare it all m'luds!

    ReplyDelete
  20. New Zealand must be streets ahead of us on this type of thing because one of their politicians came up with this idea and its supported by their law commission.Nothing like this could happen in Scotland no msp would ever dare bring up a bill to make judges declare their interests and the wimp corrupt Scottish Government would never do it on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The public sack politicians when we vote and they lose their seats. Judges we cannot remove, cannot find out if they are honest. They are the biggest crooks in any country. They wield enormous power without being accountable in terms of how honest they are. And they are all lawyers. I wonder if the one who hopes we clients get blown up is a Judge?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bentjudges.com

    This Account Has Been Suspended

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pity someone wouldn't blow you up along with the rest of these nutcases and your friends.

    So you want us all silenced even by violent means. Someone steals your property Mr Lawyer and the police do nothing about it. You would be furious and you would be correct. But when the Law Society refuse to prosecute Penman and Peter starts his blog you call him and us nutcases. Grow up you idiot. Your problem is you love making clients lives hell and want them to rot afterwards. It is because of people with your attitudes lawyers reputations are in the gutter.

    Don't read a Diary of Injustice is my advice. And lay off the fruit loops.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous said...

    If you want the big story check out financial connections between the courts and RangersFC..

    10 December 2012 15:15

    I can imagine!

    ReplyDelete
  25. This could have helped in a case I know of where a client was suing his former solicitors who occasionally employed the judge in the case as a consultant and speaker.Needless to say nothing was said during the court hearings and the client subsequently lost his claim.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous said...

    A LAWYER said...

    Oh i see you have supporters Mr Cherbi [YES MR CHERBI HAS MANY] but I'm not one of them.

    The sooner we get rid of you and all your kind [ZYKLON B PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE THAT] the better for us. NOTICE NO CRITICISM OF LAW SOCIETY OR PENMAN. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE REGARDED RIGHTLY AS ORGANISED CRIMINALS. THEY THINK RUIN PEOPLE AND DUMP THEM. SO WHO IS SAFE? RUIN, DUMP, RUIN, DUMP, RUIN, DUMP, RUIN, DUMP.

    Pity someone wouldn't blow you up along with the rest of these nutcases. CALM DOWN, CHILD.

    MR LAWYER I WOULD GLADLY BE BLOWN UP BY AN ATOM BOMB BEFORE I WOULD TRUST YOUR KIND AGAIN. GET A LIFE AND GROW UP. HE KNOWS THE WORD IS SPREADING TO POTENTIAL CLIENTS. THE RUIN AND DUMP POLICY OF SCOTTISH BRITISH LAWYERS AND THEIR LAW SOCIETY SAFEHOUSE IS CATCHING UP WITH THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ruin you, then dump you before your court date, block you from suing the lawyer who ruined you.

    Ruin, dump, block. Then you complain to the Law Society or their SLCC. Now we complete the cycle. Ruin you, then dump you before your court date block you from suing the lawyer who ruined you and the Law Society/SLCC coverup.

    New unsuspecting client and the cycle of injustice starts again. Ruin, dump, block, coverup. The Scottish Legal Profession in action.

    And perhaps one day a ruined client will get blown up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes,funny how they manage this in other countries but not here.Must be a lot of corrupt judges around the courts?

    ReplyDelete
  29. No I dont think these judges can be trusted one bit if you take a look at the monetary value of cases before them and just who is involved or may end up having to pay out as a result of their decisions.. so I fully agree with you that it is time for a register of their interests and criminal penalties if they fail to declare.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/1962433/.html

    Sheriff Andrew Lothian - you all know the story.So what would he be putting on his register of interests do you think?

    Do you also know the Crown Office,msps and the Scottish Executive had all been briefed/had knowledge of his antics long before he had to resign?

    Speaks volumes of the Crown Office they knew of his associations with known criminals (prostitutes) yet did nothing until the press were about to print.

    How many more of the current crop of judges are in the same boat?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have emailed you a story and some details about a sheriff in Tayside you need to look into.Good luck I'm sure you can do it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Holyrood's newest MSP has been sworn in at parliament, after taking the place of a Labour colleague who decided to to quit the job.

    Jayne Baxter has taken over as a member in Mid Scotland and Fife, replacing John Park, who has taken up a trade union post.

    As a regional list member, Ms Baxter was automatically appointed without the need for a by-election.

    She has spent her working life in local government in Fife.

    Ms Baxter, who has always lived in the region, took the oath at the start of business in the Scottish Parliament chamber.

    The Kelty politician, who was a former parliamentary assistant to former prime minister Gordon Brown, was elected as a Fife councillor last May.

    Mr Park, who ran Labour's 2011 election campaign, decided to leave parliament to become policy and strategy director for the trade union Community.
    ===============================
    AIB and friends forced him out. Be careful who you help Jayne.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Like the expenses of politicians this lot want us kept in the dark. I have no doubt many of them have screwed the Legal Aid pot on their way up the ladder, so they will be perverting justice because they can. WHO CAN STOP THEM? They really are a group who operate in the public realm whose activities and links are embedded in secrecy.

    Are any of them fit for public office?

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Law Society's of the United Kingdom took Solicitors from Hell off the web because it broke their secret complaints system. They don't want the public finding what gangsters they are.

    E Bay provides a feedback system. It could not work without it. Beware you have no protection against lawyers. The Legal Profession think you are all fit for exploitation, but unfit to give the public your opinion on how they have treated you. These despotic control freaks maintain they are honest but do not want an E Bay feedback system.

    And the extremists among them want us blown up and call us nutcases. Avoid lawyers all costs, they want to silence their victims so they can ruin you all for the lawyers God ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    ReplyDelete
  35. To the fruitcake that wants us blown up. Losing clients are you? I hope so. With attitudes like yours it is no surprise your reputations are going down the pan.

    When I speak to people (most have mortgages) I say Google Crooked Lawyers. They learn what you all are. I am 51 years old Mr fruitcake. As long as I live I will warn people about the criminals lawyers are. When you are making comments suggesting violence we know the prescription is working.

    Only an idiot would say we should be blown up. Perhaps Santa will bring you a chemistry set. If your friends who we do not want blown up had prosecuted Penman your reputations would be better for it. And you are meant to be a professional person. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pity someone wouldn't blow you up. The riots in England, remember them. If a youth had put, pity someone wouldn't blow you up, about politician for example would the youth have been jailed? Or pity someone wouldn't loot more shops.

    Why has this lawyer not been charged?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I for one am not surprised these judges have plenty to disclose yet want to keep it secret.

    Just recently there was a series on BBC about the justice system and it featured these judges in huge homes and properties talking about how ordinary they are etc yet the reverse was coming out of what they were saying in that these people regarded themselves as "special" and clearly apart from the rest of us.

    So the question has to be how can a judge end up owning half of Oxfordshire and not be required to declare it in a register of interests and how can such wealth not impact on his decisions in courts .. its a simple point and one our politicians have had to subscribe to for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Highest Legal Aid bill in Europe, poorest legal service in Europe, corrupt Crown Office who don't have, never have enough admissible evidence to prosecute the 14 Legal Aid fraudsters or any other of their brethren, corrupt Law Society, SLCC.

    All these Judges climbed the ladder within this same system. They are honest my arse.

    Scottish Legal Aid, money for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Having been a casual spectator to several court cases over the years I have come to the conclusion that some Sheriff's and/or Judges seem to allow some solicitors and QC's off very lightly with what I would describe as horendous blunders which other spectators have commented on, and the poor client was totally oblivious. And it is very obvious there are "favourites" who get special treatment, this of course is only my personnel view,but I'am sure others must be aware.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous said...
    THEY WANT YOUR CASH : Scotland has highest legal aid budget in EU, yet lawyers chant “save justice” and strike to demand more for them, less for you.
    ===============================
    They want your cash and make no mistake they will use it to ruin people. For example Legal Aid for litigation. They get your money to destroy Health & Safety at work. Say your daughter is injured. Her lawyer takes her case against her employer. Her employer, lawyer, doctors all insured by RSA.

    Say you want to sue a lawyer. You will not get a lawyer or Legal Aid. You cannot sue a High Court Judge. But they can sue you. A lawyer can sue you. It is no accident that members of the public cannot sue lawyers. It is no accident that they can steal all you have and be cleared of any wrongdoing. They have designed the legal system so that you cannot get justice against lawyers. So your assets are the legal professions if they decide to help themselves.

    10 December 2012 20:10
    ///////////////(/(/)/)/)/)/(/(/(/)/)/)/)/(/(/(/)/)/)/)/)/)/)//////////////

    They see their clients as CASH TREES?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous said...
    Like the expenses of politicians this lot want us kept in the dark. I have no doubt many of them have screwed the Legal Aid pot on their way up the ladder, so they will be perverting justice because they can. WHO CAN STOP THEM? They really are a group who operate in the public realm whose activities and links are embedded in secrecy.

    Are any of them fit for public office?

    12 December 2012 22:01
    Ssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuccccckkkkkkoooooovvvvvv

    If Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, then it stands to reason that our judiciary, the Crown Office and the Law Society of Scotland are crooked?

    Get the police in there to sort them out with there size 10's that's what is needed?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous said...
    To the fruitcake that wants us blown up. Losing clients are you? I hope so. With attitudes like yours it is no surprise your reputations are going down the pan.

    When I speak to people (most have mortgages) I say Google Crooked Lawyers. They learn what you all are. I am 51 years old Mr fruitcake. As long as I live I will warn people about the criminals lawyers are. When you are making comments suggesting violence we know the prescription is working.

    Only an idiot would say we should be blown up. Perhaps Santa will bring you a chemistry set. If your friends who we do not want blown up had prosecuted Penman your reputations would be better for it. And you are meant to be a professional person. Grow up.

    13 December 2012 10:56
    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Fantastic post dude.

    Hope you live to 100.

    Keep up your Ministry and spread the truth

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous said...
    Having been a casual spectator to several court cases over the years I have come to the conclusion that some Sheriff's and/or Judges seem to allow some solicitors and QC's off very lightly with what I would describe as horendous blunders which other spectators have commented on, and the poor client was totally oblivious. And it is very obvious there are "favourites" who get special treatment, this of course is only my personnel view,but I'am sure others must be aware.
    13 December 2012 14:04
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Is this the result of those friendly chat-in sessions in the Judges chambers prior to the case being heard?

    When you say this, I'll say that.......?

    Whatever you do, don't open the brown paper package and count it until you get home your honour?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous said...
    Like the expenses of politicians this lot want us kept in the dark. I have no doubt many of them have screwed the Legal Aid pot on their way up the ladder, so they will be perverting justice because they can. WHO CAN STOP THEM? They really are a group who operate in the public realm whose activities and links are embedded in secrecy.

    Are any of them fit for public office?

    12 December 2012 22:00
    £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

    That is exactly the POINT?

    There is no way of knowing other than having a moratorium and requiring them to comply with a Register of their Interests?

    There refusal to volunteer to do this says it all really?

    ReplyDelete
  45. What's the difference between Scottish judges and Pinocchio?

    Er.....Duhh.......Nothing?

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.