US justices base their careers on corporate funds – Lord Gill. DURING a meeting at the Scottish Parliament almost one year ago, Scotland’s former Lord President & Lord Justice General launched a scathing attack on the judiciary of the United States of America, accusing top US judges of harbouring financial ties to corporations & vested interests – in order to ensure their election to judicial office.
The damning accusations against top US Justices – aired in an open session of the Scottish Parliament by Scotland’s longest serving judge - Lord Brian Gill (74) – were not in response to an international incident or some complicated round of diplomacy and trade negotiations.
Rather, Brian Gill’s pulverising attack on the integrity of the judiciary of the United States - looked upon by many as the world’s most powerful democracy – were in response to a proposal for Scottish judges to register their interests – in the very same way judges in the United States and other international jurisdictions are required to register their interests.
Answering questions from MSP Angus MacDonald, Lord Gill quipped: “I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.”
Responding to some measure of astonishment, Gill charged in and blew apart the integrity of his judicial colleagues in the US, stating: “I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts.”
Judicial Transparency, US style, or for that – judicial transparency from any other jurisdiction, was not welcome in Scotland - according to Lord Gill.
And Gill was the expert. For as one of the shortest term serving Lord Presidents’ of modern times – he spent much of his three year term battling against proposals to require Scotland’s elite, secretive judiciary to declare their significant wealth and connections to the professions & big business as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
However, worse was to come from the notoriously anti-transparency judge, who once threatened to deny journalists access to court documents.
Lord Gill – who has since relocated to a posh seat on the UK Supreme Court based in London - was not content with lambasting US justices he accused of cuddling up to corporations for campaign cash.
In response to further questions from the Petitions Committee, Lord Gill opened up another sneering line of attack on US judges, castigating the highly valued nomination hearings of US Supreme Court justices which form a key part of the judicial process in America and are widely available to watch online, with examples such as the nomination process for famed Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Lashing out again at the almost alien concept of judicial transparency coming to Scotland, Lord Gill recoiled: “I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.”
However, only weeks before Gill made his outburst against the judicial selection process in the United States, the behind closed doors approach to selecting Scottish judges – who dodge questions on their own ties to vested interests inside and outside the legal profession, was revealed in a media investigation here: TO PLAY THE PRESIDENT: Transparency, diversity & judicial reform on the cards as hunt begins for Scotland’s next top judge & Lord President of the Court of Session.
And, investigations by DOI revealed Scotland’s judiciary are themselves, no stranger to financial ties to vested interests and big banks, reported in further detail here: JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals and here: COURT BANKING, M’LORD: ‘Unworkable’ register of judicial interests reveals top judges’ financial links to world of big money, insurance giants, vested interests.
No one would ever claim the US justice system, or any justice system was perfect.
It is true, US justices do have links to corporations, and regular coverage appears in the media.
However at least in the United States and other international jurisdictions where registers of interests are required of the judiciary, court users, elected politicians, the media and public have the opportunity by right of law and expectation of transparency - to inspect their judiciary on a much more detailed level than in Scotland.
And, this is what makes the difference. Transparency. An altogether simple case to present. Nothing more complicated than openness itself.
Beware then, those who answer questions on transparency with hand gestures, demands on how to frame the questions being put to them, or using an underlying tone of aggression.
Video footage of Lord Gill’s meticulous, if short derision of judicial colleagues in the United States made clear the former Lord President’s opinion of judges who are required by law and due process to follow a path more transparent than his, and his colleagues within the Judiciary of Scotland.
Lord Brian Gill slams US judges - Top Scots judge claims US judiciary elected by vested interests
Official Record: Petitions Committee 10 November 2015
Angus MacDonald: Thank you. It was important to get that fundamental view on the record.
What is your view of the fact that the United States of America has successfully introduced a register of judicial interests? Has the system in the States increased public confidence in the judiciary?
Lord Gill: I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.
Angus MacDonald: I will not pick up on that particular point.
Has there been any evidence on the impact that the US system has had on the independence of judges or the way in which the media treats judges in the USA?
Lord Gill: I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts. I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.
The full evidence session held at the Scottish Parliament with Lord Gill on 7 November 2015 can be viewed here: Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015 with a full report and transcript of the meeting here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests.
In between refusing to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Lord Brian Gill spent his time on international travel, and giving a lecture on judicial ethics while on a taxpayer funded state visit to Qatar – a country not known as a haven of transparency or human rights.
Lord Gill’s Qatar expedition funded by public cash is reported in further detail here: LORD JET SET: Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree.
A year on from the confrontation between Lord Gill and the Scottish Parliament – only after two refusals to give evidence – MSPs await to hear from Scotland’s current top judge Lord Carloway – who, like his predecessor, given an equally hostile opinion on the very notion of judicial transparency and requirements of judges to declare their interests.
A recent report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal.
The proposals before the Scottish Parliament received cross party backing from MSPs during a full debate at Holyrood during October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.
Call us what you will Lord Gill we all have our problems and are happily no longer a colony of your leeching brethren.
ReplyDeleteTake your red robes and accusations elsewhere.
Ginsburg fan,I knew it all along lol
ReplyDeleteHaha is this guy coming over here to give us a lesson in transparency?So much for Scotland being a democracy huh
ReplyDeleteHow about Gill going to DC stand on the steps of the court and preach his garbage while telling us why he hates registering interests so much
ReplyDeleteSecrecy is an obsession for these people. He protests too much. They must all be up to their necks in interests that would debase the positions they hold. How can the public trust these people in court. He said Scottish Judges may be open to hostility from litigants etc if a register was created. Perhaps those members of the Judiciary in the United States will regard Mr Gill as hostile? Again he seems to have one set of rules for his own group and is quite keen to throw accusations elsewhere, even at Judges.
ReplyDeleteand this judge works in the UK Supreme Court after making such remarks?
ReplyDeleteHow can a judge who holds such views ever be considered impartial
Lord Gill: I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts. I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.
ReplyDeleteGill didnt want to go before the committee at least twice or more hence headlines of Lord NONO and he was content to go off to Qatar at our expense! and speak about his so-called ethics but not talk about the same to MSPs.
He is all over the shop.Carloway will be just as bad if his letter is anything to go by although maybe learn a few lessons from the car crash meeting on what not to say or do.
So not much to hide then.Otherwise he would have agreed to the register four years ago.
ReplyDeleteWith this kind of mentality and superiority complex engrained in the Scottish establishment do NOT expect any special deal with Europe not that they are any more honest I suppose!
ReplyDeleteAh yes the sneering attitude towards the USA strikes again yet his colleagues like to splash out on giving jobs to their pals in useless £2.3 million ambassador jobs in the good old USofA they like to sneer at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699967/Scottish-ambassador-Washington-office-cost-taxpayers-two-point-three-million-pounds
Scottish "ambassador" and Washington office cost taxpayers £2.3 million
SCOTLAND'S first "ambassador" was branded a waste of money last night after it was revealed that he has cost taxpayers £2.3million.
By STEPHEN WILKIE
PUBLISHED: 21:17, Sun, Aug 14, 2016 | UPDATED: 11:08, Mon, Aug 15, 2016
Donnie Jack is costing the government millions but his function doesn't bring in results
The post of "Counsellor for the Americas" was created to promote Scotland's interests in the US - which is already carried out by British Embassy officials.
And in an ironic twist, the Scottish diplomat - Donnie Jack - is based in the embassy, close to the official British ambassador, in an office rented from the UK Government.
The post has so far cost £2.3 million in salary and expenses a Freedom of Information(FOI) request has revealed.
Figures released by the Scottish Government show the annual cost of the "Scottish Affairs Office" has risen by 14 per cent over the past six years and reached a record high of £416,000 last year.
Since 2010, the post has cost £2.3 million - made up of six-figure salaries, accommodation across the US, travel and other expenses.
Despite the expense, the Scottish Government failed to provide details of any investments directly secured by the Washington office, based in a building only 30 yards from the British Ambassador's residence.
Mr Jack, a former adviser to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has held the post since 2014, succeeding Robin Naysmith, a former private secretary to Alex Salmond.
I hope the State Department is reading this
ReplyDeleteHe certainly makes Scotland look a laughing stock!
ReplyDeleteThe old habit of accusing someone else to distract from one's own shortcomings
ReplyDeleteOPENNESS? LORD, NO: The day Scotland's former top judge lashed out at America’s justice system, accusing US judges of financial ties to corporations & vested interests......................When in a hole stop digging. He clearly thinks he does not have to provide evidence of Scottish Judges financial ties to corporations and vested interests. Thou doth protest too much. He wants us to look across the pond and give up on Peter's petition. Dream on.
ReplyDeleteAnswering questions from MSP Angus MacDonald, Lord Gill quipped: “I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.”
ReplyDelete=====================================================================================
He is missing the point, we do not know what kind of judiciary we have in Scotland because it is all so secret, but we can be certain of one fact. Mr Gill and his colleagues want to maintain secrecy and so destroy their own credibility. It is a bit like the commandment thou shalt not lie when clergy cannot prove what they teach is the truth. A clergyman does not have to believe in God, he is under a contract of employment to teach church doctrine. Just like in former times access to the promised afterlife for those who follow the doctrines of the church depended on the latter why should professional clergy regulate this. In the real world access to justice should not be controlled by those who have vested interests either. It's all about money and control nothing else.
What is the problem with having judges in for a chat before they take office?
ReplyDeleteI watched the clip of Ruth Ginsburg and a few others on You Tube.Looks good to me.
The only reason We dont do this is because judges like Gill throw their weight and opinions around as if they own the court and parliament.
The Petitions Committee MSPs should now set an example by taking your petition forward and put it to a vote to bring the register into power.
Anyone who votes against something that always should have been has to be up to something or part of the legal interests crowd Jackson Carlaw talked about in earlier meetings.
Spoken in disdain for anyone outwith the narrow circle of the Scottish judicial mafia.As he says it you can see this is his true feelings towards anyone who does not comply with his outlook on life.Someone should have taken him up on that and asked him to explain exactly what is wrong with judges being questioned about their beliefs and ethics before they take the most powerful seat in the land our judges hand to their own without any public input.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting the comment with the Express story on Salmond giving his buddies a £2.3 million job!never knew we had a waste of space jobsworth in America until now!Had enough of SNP holding Scotland back we are no further forward than when the nats took office in 2007.Time for change folks if you cant do something in ten years no point in being in the top job!
ReplyDeleteYes very good Peter the Supreme Court is in the news lately and I am sure they will be reading these unkind comments from Gill.Come to think of it his fancy wigs and gowns were commonplace at the time of the American revolution!No wonder they set up on their own!
ReplyDeletealways the ones who answer a question with an accusation against someone else are well at it
ReplyDeleteHe is no fool though.Obviously took note of nats interfering in the judiciary and jumped ship to London based Uk Supreme Court.If not for that and your petition he would have stayed put for at least another year..
ReplyDeleteHaving spent a few hours today reading several Scottish legal source websites I have to say Mr Cherbi yours is without doubt the most incisive and unbiased.A job well done.
ReplyDeleteGill said “I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts.”
ReplyDeleteYeah I bet.Imagine if some parliamentarian had the guts to ask these judges real questions about their careers and what they got up to in real life instead of all that fluff we hear about judges on the telly!
Salt of the earth I think not!
He sounds just as bad as the rest
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13107463.Scotland_s_top_judge_snubs_Holyrood_inquiry_into_register_of_interests/
ReplyDeleteScotland's top judge snubs Holyrood inquiry into register of interests
1 Jun 2013 Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor
THE head of Scotland's judiciary has sparked a constitutional turf war with the Scottish Parliament by twice refusing to give evidence to a controversial inquiry into judges' finances.
The Lord President, Lord Gill, snubbed Holyrood on the grounds of "constitutional principle", despite agreeing to appear at another parliamentary committee debate this week on court structures.
MSPs have described the rejection as "disappointing", an "insult" and smelling of "vested interests".
Legal campaigner Peter Cherbi last year lodged a petition at Holyrood calling for the members of the judiciary to declare their financial interests and any hospitality received. He argued that this could "provide greater transparency within the judicial system" and avoid conflicts of interest.
Such a register could require judges to declare shareholdings and property ownership.
A range of public servants, including MPs, MSPs and quango board members, already have to file to a register of interests.
In the course of considering the proposal, Gill, who became Lord President last year, wrote to the Petitions Committee that a register was "unnecessary".
He said there were "sufficient safeguards" to ensure judicial impartiality and argued that judges' privacy could be affected by "aggressive media or hostile individuals".
He concluded: "The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."
In March, the committee asked the Lord President to give oral evidence but he declined, saying that he could "not add any material points" to his written response. Weeks later, the committee's convener, Labour MSP David Stewart, asked Gill a second time to appear, suggesting that his evidence would help the inquiry.
However, Gill again refused. He wrote that he intended "no discourtesy" and noted that judges had in the past given evidence to Holyrood committees. But he argued that participation must "be kept within prudent limits".
And he cited a section of the Scotland Act 1998 – the legislation that lays down the Parliament's powers – which states that judges may not be required to give evidence.
He wrote: "This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary."
Gill said he was open to a meeting with the committee convener about the implications of his invitation, rather than to discuss the petition.
However, he has agreed to give oral evidence to the Justice Committee on Tuesday on proposals to shake up the court system. Last year, he also gave evidence to that committee about legislation on civil justice.
2nd part containing the comment from Jackson Carlaw again very apt to Gill shifting the blame onto American judges
ReplyDeleteas Jackson Carlaw said Me thinks the Lord President doth protest too much!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13107463.Scotland_s_top_judge_snubs_Holyrood_inquiry_into_register_of_interests/
Scotland's top judge snubs Holyrood inquiry into register of interests
1 Jun 2013 / Paul Hutcheon , Investigations Editor
According to Section 23 of the Scotland Act, Holyrood may require "any person" to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence. However, this legal power cannot be "imposed" on a judge.
At a meeting of the Petitions Committee, Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw said: "The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down. In fact, the protest was so great that I found myself thinking, 'Methinks the Lord President doth protest too much'."
The Cherbi proposal is partly motivated by the Parliament of New Zealand debating a register of judges' financial interests. In 2010, a former Supreme Court judge in New Zealand resigned after he failed to disclose a debt owed to a solicitor who appeared in one of his cases.
SNP MSP Chic Brodie, deputy convener of the Petitions Committee, said: "It's regrettable that Lord Gill feels he cannot discuss the register of interest issue, but at least there is an opportunity for a meeting."
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland declined to comment.
Peter there is a fantastic report on STV about your petition!
ReplyDeletehttp://stv.tv/news/scotland/239879-scotlands-top-judge-criticised-over-refusal-of-register-of-interests/
Scotland's top judge criticised over refusal of register of interests STV 17 September 2013
Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw questioned whether ‘the swish of judicial ermine and velvet should cow into deference both the public and the legislature’.
Scotland's most senior judge has been accused of displaying an 'Edwardian establishment disdain for the hoi polloi’ by rejecting calls for a register of interest for the judiciary.
Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw questioned whether ‘the swish of judicial ermine and velvet should cow into deference both the public and the legislature’ and deter them from investigating the family and social relationships of the judiciary.
The first person employed to review judicial decisions has backed a petition for a register of interests for the judiciary to log family links, social connections and memberships of relevant bodies at Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee.
Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, said her position is toothless, she operates on a shoestring, works three days a month maximum and has no authority to challenge judicial decisions.
She also claims she has no authority to get feedback from the Lord President, Lord Gill, on how her recommendations are handled.
Lord Gill, Scotland's most senior judge, declined the committee's invitation to address the petition and the devolved Parliament has no powers to make him to appear.
The judge will instead meet the committee’s convener, David Stewart and his deputy Chic Brodie, in private.
Protection of privacy and concerns about ‘media harassment’ are central to the judiciary's objections to the register, the committee heard.
Ms Ali challenged the judiciary's insistence that the judicial oath to assess cases impartially should be enough to instil confidence in the legal process, claiming: "It clearly isn't.”
She added: "We are not talking large numbers but issues have been raised about undeclared family relationships and memberships of a variety of organisations."
It is ‘difficult to argue’ that politicians and other public figures should have registers of interests but the judiciary should not, she said.
Ms Ali also said one complainant said his appeal was heard by the son of the judge who presided over the trial, while it is suggested that judges ‘change their names to hide their family links to other judges’.
She added: "Most of the letters I receive express the feeling that people are in cahoots, that they look after their own and the whole thing is a big cover-up.
"I don't believe generally that it is but because there is no transparency, people believe that is the case."
Ms Ali outlined her duties and experience since being appointed Scotland's first Judicial Complaints Reviewer two years ago.
She explained: "I'm a bit like an ombudsman without the teeth in that I can review the judicial office's handling of complaints but I don't have an ombudsman's power to make any determination other than that complaints were handled in accordance with the rules or not.
"It's a part-time role, three days a month maximum and I operate on a shoestring budget of #2,000 a year."
part 2 http://stv.tv/news/scotland/239879-scotlands-top-judge-criticised-over-refusal-of-register-of-interests/
ReplyDeleteScotland's top judge criticised over refusal of register of interests STV 17 September 2013
The reviewer's remit was agreed by the Scottish Parliament in The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.Ms Ali said: "My concern is I might feel that the rules haven't been followed, send it back to the Lord President and then never know what happens. I feel somewhat as if my hands are tied because I can make suggestions but I can't do anything more than that.
"Recently there was a case I referred back which, I was told, would be reinvestigated but I didn't hear anything more. I asked the judicial office what had happened and they said they couldn't tell me because it was a matter for the Lord President.
"I've written to the Lord President asking what I can expect, because I am unhappy about referring things back and not knowing what happened."
The Lord President is not subject to freedom of information laws, she pointed out.
Mr Carlaw said: "From this committee's perspective, I think that what has been the focus of our attention here has been the Lord President's Edwardian establishment disdain for the hoi polloi, as I think the petitioner sees it, in terms of us having any right to understand these matters.
"I wonder if you would put it more politely, but it does seem to me that you're not a million miles away from characterising it this way. Is it still the case that the swish of judicial ermine and velvet should cow into deference both the public and the legislature in terms of our right to understanding these issues?
"In this day and age, the reason that the Lord President appears to be against it is that it has not been so to date."
Ms Ali responded: "I'd like to be as colourful as you are but I feel I can't at the moment. In any institution, in any sector, change is not always welcome, particularly change that is seen to be quite challenging.
Most institutions resist that as it is seen as something of a threat, when actually I prefer to see it as an opportunity.
"More transparency in any area of life can only be a good thing. I know that there can be a downside, and I have read the judiciary's response to the petition which is that it is 'intrusive and could attract negative media reaction', but that goes hand in hand with accountability."
Mr Stewart said: "We did ask the Lord President to appear before us and the Scotland Act has a provision which states that the judiciary cannot be required to appear before the committee.
"The Lord President is next door at another committee. If the Lord President wishes to go voluntarily that is entirely up to him. However, we have made arrangements for myself and the deputy convener to meet the Lord President in a few weeks' time."
Lord Gill was giving evidence to the Justice Committee's scrutiny of the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill on Tuesday.
Hi Peter sorry I posted some comments with newspaper and stv articles about your petition I only posted them so your readers can know there are many who support your petition and the good you do for all of us your blog is one of the few things giving me joy in life to read hope you post my comment and keep up the good work for us all you are a credit to the free press!!!!
ReplyDeleteHigh praise indeed in the earlier comments.Suffice to say Mr C is on our side and I am sure does his best to get the information out so we can all read it.Good to know there are others out there who also print news as it should be rather than a sanitised version from the powers that be.
ReplyDeleteSo if this Lord Gill is so expert why doesn't he come up with examples and name the US judges he accuses of leeching off companies to get their nomination
ReplyDeleteIf he had come out with this garbage at a Senate hearing he would feel the heat not like over there
So much for any lingering notion of integrity of judiciary.
ReplyDeleteAll I see is an angry judge and the anger is down to what you perfectly describe as the very easy proposal of transparency.
Shocking.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting the comment with the Express story on Salmond giving his buddies a £2.3 million job!never knew we had a waste of space jobsworth in America until now!Had enough of SNP holding Scotland back we are no further forward than when the nats took office in 2007.Time for change folks if you cant do something in ten years no point in being in the top job!
27 October 2016 at 13:01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SNP are rotten and I would not trust any of them especially Alex Salmond and Sturgeon. To be honest I have contempt for politicians in general but these two who claim to want to do the best for Scotland's interest would leave the Law Society to torture lawyer victims to death. Politicians like the Law Society and it's membership are the scum of the earth.
Who is next on Lord Gill's accusation list?
ReplyDeleteAnything to avoid declaring interests eh
Nothing to fear nothing to hide like they tell us.
If Gill had done the decent thing and passed the register on his own maybe he would still have been Lord President though I suppose there really is too much to hide because I dont believe any of his rubbish about principles of judicial independence getting in the way of a register of interests this is the worst argument ever and if he did have principles he wouldnt be saying what he did about the judiciary in the USA
ReplyDeleteAre you sure Lord Gill is not one of your secret agents?The mam is a headline gift to the press and your petition!Looking through his written evidence and the video of the meeting he has done as much to advance the case for a register of declarations as you!Tempted to say the same of Lord Carloway's overkill letter to the Petitions committee back in February.The more they say no the interesting this debate.
ReplyDeletethe guy has his own business interests so wtf is he talking about!
ReplyDelete@ 28 October 2016 at 23:32
ReplyDeleteYes ... it appears anyone is disposable in the Lord President's & Judicial Office' opposition to a public expectation of transparency, including Lord Gill's accusations against the reputations of judicial colleagues from the United States and any other jurisdictions where judges comply with registers of interest.
The judge in the video clip views Scotland as a judicial dictatorship.He is the leader He speaks as one he stares at the politicians as he demands his orders be obeyed.Look how his face turns whenever he is asked a question.Proof positive a judge is no friend of democracy or people asking him to explain himself.The man does not welcome democratic debate and as you say yourself he refused to speak to your legislature many times before now,
ReplyDeleteIn your latest post on the influence of judges he talks about people being privileged to live in a country with a judiciary you cannot question or if you do he will send you to jail or you will be dragged away by the Police Department and hung in the city of Edinburg.
He talks about our judges here in the U.S. raising campaign funds and by insinuation beholden to the providers of campaign funds.This is an accusation of corruption.
He may be correct or he may be wrong.Whatever.He should be summoned here and make these claims in front of Congress so we can question his evidence and his motives in accusing our judges of corruption.How honest is he?You will find our Congress will demand answers from the "Lord".
Yes I live in a country where the FBI has intervened in the election of our next President.I also live in a country where if the Police Department arrive at your door you may be dead in a few minutes for no god damn reason.
You guys have your mad old judges demanding to rule your country we have our mad cops shooting people for any reason they can make up and a judge says hey that's just fine with me.
My message to everyone is this Police-judicial gang who now dictate our freedoms no matter what country you live in has to be checked.It used to be we paid them to protect us.Now we pay them and judges to enslave us!
Maybe this Lord Gill thinks he is better than the rest of us because he has a title and acts the big bully I take our judges over this stuck up old *** any day and he must be hiding his own interests because he does not want the register
ReplyDeleteThe guy in the video sounds like he was in the movie The madness of king george :D
ReplyDelete