barristers.htm 4 Oct. 2004 KEY
||Barristers *Page first published February
Community On Line and work for and with others in order to challenge and expose the
abductors and rapists of Justice & Democracy. Access the exclusive
page where your rights are covered and don't moan, ACT.
information about the facilities available to victims of authority access the two pages
where the value and the power of the written word is made clear. Citizens world-wide
are finding out that RIGHT IS MIGHT. Page 1 covers the
Community on Line facility. Page 2 covers the facilities for TRUE
& UNADULTERATED reporting of that which the victims fall prey to, and the media gals
and guys shove in the family closet as guardians of the rampant free for all in an
allegedly civilised society that is founded and rests, allegedly, on principles of law and
KEY to Page
Page VENUES & Events
Page IMAGES - ARTICLES
1. Page Reconstruction
2. Added News Article 2004
Page IMAGES - List
The Guardian - 20 July 2000 'UN Scorns UK performance'
'Daily Record' - 28 Sep 2004 'Barristers conduct survey..'
Page ARTICLES - List
Daily Record 28 Sept. 2004
|On 28th September 2004, the 'Daily Record' was informing its readers that
Advocates in Scotland took part in a survey, the results of which were published by the
Legal Magazine, 'The Firm'.
We reproduce the article in this page and beg to draw our
visitors attention to the words of the editor (*Link)
that reflect the very elements that our founder first raised and spoke of in 1963. [*Link]
1. Editor of The Times -
2. Lord Chancellor Aug. 1998
3. Home Secretary 12 / 1998
4. Prime Minister - 11 / 1999
5. Prime Minister - 12 / 1999
6. Frank Field MP - 4 / 2003
7. Haringey Council CROOKS
8. Fraudsters Club Recruit 01
9. Lap-dog - LIPS Fraudster
10. Prime Minister - 2 / 2002
11. The Treasury - 2 / 2002
12. Home Secretary- 2 / 2002
13. Hackney Council CROOKS
14. Editor LEStandard 2/2002
15. ECoHR August 2003
In the NEWS
1. Prime Minister - 1 / 2002
2. Home Secretary - 4 / 2002
3. Sir Paul Condon - QPM
4. J Stephens Dep. Com 1998
5. Sir John Stevens - QPM
6. Home Secretary - 5 / 2003
1. Gov. Opposition - 1995
2. Prime Minister - 11 / 1999
1. Barristers LIABLE, too.
2. Advocates SPEAK out.
3. Public Servants to account
4. Citizens have a CHOICE...
|Page PERSONS - List
We are to include in our pages the names of persons who acted in breach of the
law, public office and of the trust of the serfs who relied upon them to secure their
rights in and at law [*Link to the page corruptcourts.htm & note what
conditioned victims engage in care of the facilities in place that corrupt morons]
||Page Revised: August 04, 2012 Layout
changes, material from 'The Brotherhood' added
re-construction for better navigation.
VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no
choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY; our
observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept
quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes created
by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. Visitors / readers will find the
addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that all will share
with us our concerns and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt and
promote activities which they know are nothing but downright crimes.
We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as
conscientious law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between
Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET.
Guidelines on Navigating
through the extensive material: access
As part of the reconstruction process our new
pages and pages where changes and additions have been implemented, the improved / amended
pages are endorsed with the link 'Page Changes and the date of the last changes. The link
takes visitors to a List of the changes implemented in the page. These include new
material and links from relevant paragraphs to other or new relevant material in
other pages. For further clarification email: webmaster@ <>
pages are dedicated to complaints and issues barristers are called to
address as individuals and as a body who self regulate(s) the actions and the
activities of its members. Inclusive of defaults, mistakes and or the wrongs members of
the public suffer from and or have been the victims of consequential to and or in the
course of such court proceedings as are questioned and/or ARE CHALLENGED accordingly by
the citizens through the courts and through these pages because of the fact that such
matters DO rest on PUBLIC DOMAIN documents, court Records.
Be not discouraged by anyone. BARRISTERS
TOO are liable for the wrongs and the mistakes THEY MAKE when 'acting on behalf of clients
the solicitors INSTRUCT THEM for, and or when solicitors acquiesce the wrongs and or
mistakes barristers make.
to 'The Guardian' newspaper, Home News, page 3, of Friday November 3
1978. Law Lords ruling:- "Barristers
liable for negligence". A classic example, of DELIBERATE
defaults to serve justice? THE suppression of material facts and evidence by
Barrister(s) in the Judith Ward - case*. The victim ended in prison as a result.
Many years later she was released and compensated by the state (tax revenue). Those
responsible were never prosecuted. Of such practices and defaults UK Justice marches on
unchallenged; for how long and as of when? Our present government through the Rt.
Hon. Paul Boateng, now Minister of State at the Home Office, promised that Labour was to
attend to the problem of fraud in the 'legal SYSTEM'*. The first glimmer of
positive actions are there, (1) The Lawrence inquiry*, (2) the
Yard is investigating the untouchables* (lawyers and ...), (3) Cowboy
Lawyers* loose access to Legal Aid funds/facilities.
TWENTY-FIVE years after the
House of Lords ruling we have as yet to see a body proper, from within the legal
circles and or an independent AUTHORITY (a simple violation of Article 13 of the ECoHR) ready, willing, able AND prepared to look into the Maladministration of
justice in the theatres of the courts maintained by the United Kingdom. Within the
courts' confines the rights of the citizens, under the LAW, are treated with
contempt and court cases are used as nothing but simple vehicles through which to
generate (by design) income for the legal circles via 'abusive conditions imposed by
persons holding public office, yet charged to administer and serve Justice, nothing else.
Acting in their judicial capacities INJUDICIOUSLY through misconduct in public
office; an indictable offence.
Blatant misconduct in
public office* IS ignored by one and all irrespective of existing LAW the very courts
are meant to administer. We draw attention to such facts and realities through these
pages. It is the attention of the authorities and the media that WE SEEK; we do
expect of them to act in the direction we are pursuing. The citizens to refer such issues
to their Members of Parliament and to support our campaign. The MEDIA too, to cease the
"let us keep it under wraps; let's throw it in the family closet; let's shove it
under the carpets because we have no time to help sweep CLEAN our salons. We are busy
attempting to expose alleged corruption in the back gardens of third world countries. Such
mentalities as if our citizens rights are really affected by alleged third world country
On 20th July 2000, 'The
Guardian' front page headlines simply "UN report scorns UK human rights
record". We now know that we ARE not alone in proclaiming THE FACTS of life in
our country. Interestingly criticism is concentrated on the effects of 'The Official
secrets Act' that is used to stifle debate and to penalise writers and journalists who
refuse to reveal their sources'. 'The Guardian' and all other newspapers should do
well to read the letters exchanged between Mr Geoffrey H Scriven and the Defence and Advisory Committee; also our fair comment that
arose consequential to the Court of Appeal ruling in 'The Downing Street Years'.
Now is the time for all
MEDIA barons and editors to consider their duties to the electorate, to the public at
large and to put an end to the suppression of material facts and hard evidence that is
referred to them only to be ignored and or to be shoved in the family closet. Now is
the time for our newspapers to consider the activities in our salons and to let be the
muck and rubbish in the back gardens of far away lands. As promised in other pages
we are to publish documented evidence in support of our statements. It will then be for
the public servants who are retained and charged to administer 'The LAW' to cease ignoring
the evidence and to deal with the criminal activities that the documented evidence covers.
on 28th September 2004, the Daily Record, informs its readers that a
group of advocates, in Scotland, conducted their own survey about 'their' favourite(!)
judges. Their contribution was initially published in the legal magazine 'The Firm'. The
barristers initiative (!) could pave the way towards open discussion on the issues we have
been raising for far too long. It is refreshing to note that there is activity from within
the very circles who have been treating the citizens as of no relevance, in alleged
democracies that allegedly rest and are founded in law and order, wherein the
administrators act in contempt o al principles of law and morals (*Link to four explicit quotes on the
Most interesting that the editor of 'The Firm' should come up
with words that reflect our founders definition FOR TRUE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE (*Link). We
reproduce the 'Daily Record' below, for the benefit of our visitors.
vote for their favourite Lords
By Michael Christie
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE
THIS is the judge voted
Scotland's worst by the country's advocates.
Lord Mancroft got bottom
marks from advocates asked to rate the country's 32 full-time judges on a range of
And they singled out his bad manners for special mention, rating him only
2.7 out of 10 for courtesy and 3.05 for attitude.
Marnoch born Michael Stewart Rae Bruce, only made it above the halfway
mark for legal ability, with 5.4 out of 10, and efficiency, with 5.05, but those rankings
were still below most of his colleagues.
The survey was compiled by the legal magazine 'The Firm' and 22 advocates
submitted marks. They each rated only those judges they had appeared before.
Their favourite judge was Lord Macfayden, who scored double the marks
given to Marnoch.
The judges were rated out of 10 for attitude, courtesy, legal ability, efficiency,
compassion and clarity.
graduate Marnoch was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in 1990.
He was criticised three years ago when he allowed Michael Scott, a former
pupil of exclusive George Watson's College in Edinburgh, to walk free when caught with
£16,000 worth of heroin, a 9mm pistol and six bullets.
Richard Draycott, editor of 'The Firm', said yesterday he believed such
surveys were the best way to hold judges to account until the Executive imposed their own
He said: "At the moment they are seen as a law unto themselves.
These guys hold very senior public offices and make important decisions."
"Our view is that anyone who holds public office
and is ultimately paid by the taxpayer should be publicly reviewed of assessed in a
"Politicians are - and we get our chance to
have our say about them at election time".
"So we feel it is important and an issue that the justice department
should take a look at".
Draycott added: "Our aim is that some of these guys will modify
their behaviour. You hear about some judges who act quite unreasonably and
unprofessionally in court".
"Perhaps this will make them modify their behaviour and that would
make things run more smoothly in court".
But Paul McBride QC, vice-chairman of the Criminal Bar Association,
dismissed the survey as more than "an amusing distraction".
He said: "They are in no way of any benefit to the profession. And
nor is it to be assumed they are accurate".
Ranked second from bottom was former Lord Advocate Lord Mackay of
Drumadoon, appointed in March 2000.
Just above him was former solicitor general Lord Dawson, who last month
was revealed to be the judge with most convictions overturned.
At the other end of the table, Lord Macfayden's marks were near the top
in every category, although he did not win any of them.
A Glasgow University graduate, he was appointed a judge in 1995. Before
that, he advised the inquiry into the ritual sex abuse allegations on the Orkney island of
South Ronaldsay in 1991-92.
Second in the table is controversial Lord Reed, who was criticised after
sentencing a man to just five years in prison for raping a baby girl.
Welder James Taylor, 44, from Grangemouth, had his term increased to
eight years by the Court of Appeal last week.
The Faculty of Advocates and the Executive refused to comment on the
survey last night.
Copyright Daily Record, September 2004
From 'The Brotherhood' by Stephen Knight
From the chapter on ‘The Law
– Barristers and Judges’
In England, the rank of barrister-at-law is
conferred exclusively by four unincorporated bodies in London, known collectively as the
Inns of Court. The four Inns, established between 1310 and 1357, are Lincoln’s Inn, Gray’s
Inn, Middle Temple and the Inner Temple. Prior to the establishment of the latter two
Inns, the Temple which lies between Fleet Street and the river Thames, was the
headquarters of the Knights Temporal, declared heretics by King Phillip IV of France and
wiped out during the early fourteenth century. There is a modern-day Order of Knights
Templar within British Freemasonry which claims direct descent from the medieval order.
From the beginning the men of law were linked with Freemasonry.
Each Inn has its own library, dining hall and chapel. Thousands of
barristers’ chambers are crammed into the large impressive eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century houses. There are cobbled alleys, covered passages Gothic arches and winding
stairs. There are gardens, swards, opulent residences and courtyards. All turning their
backs on the outside world and looking into their own small world, redolent of dusty
ledgers, moth eaten wigs, public school mores, black gowns, scarlet robes and all the
ponderous unchanging majesty of the law of old England.
Each Inn is owned by its Honourable Society and is governed by its
senior members – barristers and judges – who are known as Benchers. The Benchers
decide which students will be called to the Bar (that is, made barristers) and which will
not. Their decision is final. As with so much else in British law, ancient customs attend
the passage of students to their final examinations and admission. Candidates must of
course pass examinations, which are set by the Council for Legal Education. But in
addition they must ‘keep twelve terms’, which in everyday language means that on a set
number of occasions in each legal term (Hilary, Easter, Trinity and Michaelmas) for three
years, candidates must dine at their Inn. If they do so without fail, pass their exams and
pay their fees they will then be called, and the degree, or rank, of barrister-at-law will
be bestowed upon them.
The Scottish equivalent of a barrister is an advocate, and the Scottish
equivalent of the Inns of Court is the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. King’s Inn,
Dublin, is the Irish counterpart of the English Inns.
In 1966 a Senate of the Inns of Court was set up as an overall
governing body. Its first president was, not unexpectedly, a Freemason of grand rank: Mr
Justice Widgery. Widgery had been Junior Grand Warden in the United Grand Lodge in 1961.
In Masonry he went on to become Senior Grand Warden in 1972, and in the non-secret world
to become the first Lord Chief Justice of England to have been a solicitor as well as a
The Senate itself was superseded in 1974 by a new body which combined
the functions of the Senate with the General Council of the Bar. This was given the name
of Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar and to its ninety-four members including six
Benchers from each Inn devolved the duty to oversee the conditions of admission, legal
education and welfare, and the authority to discipline and disbar, which was previously
vested in each Honourable Society. The presidents since 1974 have been Lord Justice
Templeman, Lord Scarman, Lord Justice Willer, Lord Justice Ackner and Lord Justice
Griffiths. Of these, Waller is a Freemason of grand rank; Templeman did not respond to
letters of enquiry; Ackner asked if he was a Mason, could 'give.... no information at all
concerning Freemasonry; Griffiths in reply to the same question, regretted that he was
unable to enter into correspondence on the matter raised; and Scarman did not reply.
Gray's Inn has its own Craft Lodge - No 4938 - which has its own Royal
Arch Chapter and which meets at Freemasons Hall on the third Monday of January, March, and
October (its yearly installation meeting) and on the first Monday in December.
Some specialized sections of the Bar have their own Lodges, such as the
Chancery Bar Lodge (No 2456), constituted in 1892, whose membership comprises barristers
dealing mainly in chancery matters and judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court.
The Lodge meets in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Masonic barristers are among the hardest Masons of
all to persuade to talk, or even admit to being Masons of the Brotherhood. Take, for
example, the barrister with chambers in Gray's Inn who, unable in truth to deny
membership, told me, 'I don't know in what circumstances you may or may not have been told
and I am not in a position to discuss the matter with you in any shape or form.' While the
Bar remains a masonic stronghold, there is not such a high proportion of masonic
barristers as masonic solicitors, who are looked at in Chapter 21.
One reason there was always less need for a barrister to join the
Brotherhood is that barristers traditionally had the compensation of circuit life. One
barrister told me: 'We are already a brotherhood in a sense. We are a small profession and
are thereby very close to each other in any event, and don't really need the additional
qualification of being Freemasons in order to be known among ourselves.' Despite this,
Masonry remains strong. Why?
The Bar is a strange profession in many ways, not least because most
of the very top people do not want preferment, thus creating great opportunities
for second-raters. I was first given insight into this phenomenon by an experienced
barrister, a non-Mason, who had excellent contacts in Masonry. He told me, 'A top silk can
earn between a quarter and a half million pounds a year. He will not thank you if he is
promoted to being a High Court judge, because his income will drop by ninety per cent.*
And with the prestige and respect in which he is already held, the automatic knighthood
that goes with the appointment to the High Court would be neither here nor there. This
applies to half a dozen, perhaps a dozen of the really household names.
'And there has been considerable evidence, certainly since the war,
that the appointments to High Court bench have been - with a few notable exceptions - if
not second eleven members, at least the first rank of the first division. PARAGRAPH 'This
was underlined with the appointment of Henry Fisher to the Queen's Bench Division of the
High Court in 1968. Fisher had been an absolute top practitioner in City matters -
commercial law and the like. He accepted the appointment to the High Court Bench, then two
years later made legal history by resigning to go back into commercial life. He couldn't
return to the Bar of course, but he went into the City as a company director. In 1973 he
became Vice-President of the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, and he
has conducted several important enquiries, notably into the operations at Lloyd's. It has
been said by his friends, although he hasn't said it, that it was just the loss of
financial income that led him to resign, it was the horror at suddenly moving away from
the most eminent businessmen in the country and their really intellectually
stimulating problems, and just sitting there trying criminals and listening to old ladies
who get hit by motor cycles and claim a couple of thousand pounds' damages. Her didn't
even have the patience to wait for promotion to the Court of Appeal as he was bound to
get. And even if had got to the Court of Appeal, only one case in twenty is of
any intellectual stimulation.'
The top lawyers who don't want preferment are the specialists, those
with outstanding ability and long experience in specialized branches of the law like
patent law, Common Market law, restrictive practices, Revenue, Chancery, shipping and so
on. These are the first rank of specialists, and for the most part have no ambitions to
There are therefore never enough people of ability to fill all of the
posts such as circuit judges, stipendiary magistrates, chairmen of employment tribunals,
National Health Service commissions, and so on. First, the pay is is a fraction of what
people of outstanding ability can command; secondly, they are often soul-destroying
occupations. That of circuit judge was described to me thus:
Can you imagine sitting there for eleven months of the year listening
to people repeating that same old excuses as to why they have committed crimes? And then
you can't even make a decision for yourself - you sum up to the jury, then the jury makes
the decision guilty or not guilty. Even when it comes to your discretion on passing
sentence, it's all on a scale, and if you exceed the scale you're either going to be
reversed by the Court of Appeal or the Home Secretary is going to say that judges are not
doing what they are told.** .... NOTE: We recommend persons who hare not read 'The
Brotherhood to do so
FOOTNOTE to Chapter 20
- Barrister and Judges
* The annual salary of a High Court judge in 1982-3
** Under the separation of powers, of course, the
judges are not supposed to do what politicians tell them. (NOTE from human-rights:-
BUT they are supposed to apply The LAW the elected representatives of the citizens HAVE
PUT ON THE STATUTE)
a page where we publish revelations resting on the late Stephen Wright's research /
investigations in respect of the connection of the legal circles to the Freemasons.
FOOTNOTE common to most
web-pages at this website
MOST IMPORTANT:- In October 2010, the coalition
Government's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' the mothly
legal banter magazine, specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves
from cases of (small-fry) fraud and he asserted that he
was making that element his department's priority*
*Link from here
to the evidence.
|IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, WHAT the coalition of the Con-LibDems, THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY WILL IN FACT ATTEND TO THE RAMPANT FRAUD, and IF IT WILL DEAL
with the criminals who abuse public office, especially when faced with
appropriate submissions and claims that will be delivered in due course.
Visitors/readers are urged to read the article published in the London Evening Standard,
as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in 2003
|*Link from here
to the article we reproduce in another webpage and consider "Why tolerate the arrogance of the legal circles who had
and have the audacity to assert to the lawmakers that they, the lawmakers have nothing to
do with the law"?
|While there, above it, the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon.
Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. ALL alleged victim-challengers who contacted
Andrew Yiannides, by the time the letter was sent to the Minister, received copy of the
letter just as they received copies of other letters submitted to government maintained
Ministers and other official appointees to public office. Accessing the material pointed
to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the
citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in truly democratic states. The above
in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such civilised and, within the law,
approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by governments, the explicit
challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of alleged victims of the legal
circles to have ever contacted us.
*Link from here to our explicit submissions to
(a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) and, the Home Secretary. We
acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged
victim whose only interests were (i)
the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE
OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her
parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to
mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides.
|Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw,
in December 1998
*Link from here
to the letter
|& note the results
evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching
its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the
job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do
*Link from here
to the evidence we point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system
fraudsters who were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers /
organisers of the LIPS crowd / mob..
It is obvious that Richard Darycott has not been pointed to the arrangements
ebwteen the Executive & the Adminstrative. On the other hand we are just faced with
another half-baked potato and or dust in your eyes sucker-serfs. The arrogant declaration
by the judiciary that they DO OBSRUCT ACCESS TO JUSTICE when the offending party is the
state / the government; in effect any public servant. WE POINT TO & EXPOSE, at the top
of most if not all webpages, the judges' declaration that is as clear as can be; yet no
Government Official, NO MINISTER and worse NO REPORTER / NO NTELLECTUAL PROSTITUTE who has
been pointed to 'the arrangermnst in place' has ever addressed the issue. EVERYONE
BURIED THE INFORMATION they benefited from in the dark corners of the caves they
congregate in as followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works
ever to have been misrepresented to mankind. *Link from here
to just one of the vile scenarios from the vile owrk and after 'digesting' the evil act,
consider the fact that the victim Veronica Beryl Foden engaged in far too many
questionable activities and failed to cahhlenge and or expose the abuers of the courts
facilitiwes for fraud aplenty.