no court decisions are ever final! - re your campaign's recent case

[courtchange]

This is important, re your recent case with Lloyds TSB. I have joined this forum in order to post this info, after reading of the case. I tried posting it in "Welcome to the forum" yesterday, + it just receded out of sight very quickly. Now I have discovered this section for the bank charges issue.

 

I read in the Metro: [ Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: "I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened." ]

 

This means you have found, and expressed publicly, legal fault with how a court reached a decision. You have made a reasoned objection that the court improperly ignored an aspect of law, that makes its decision wrong.

 

Isn't it mediaeval and corrupt that a court decision should still stand as having been made, when a judge has ignored part of the law applying to it? Hence a loophole in democracy allowing any law to be thwarted at will by the courts meant to uphold it, that anyone can conceive of calling such a decision "final" unless a "leave to appeal" is granted with the court having a choice to refuse it, and with an appeal costing money.

 

For 8 years! the media has covered up and determined not to acknowledge, the news that this situation has actually already been ended. It follows from illegal handling of a European Court of Human Rights case I brought in 1998-9, that because a court has committed a unarguably blatant illegality behind the mantra of "this decision is final," all legal decisions are no longer final. I call this the "court change". Anyone can see it is a massive historic advance in democracy - if its cover-up can be overcome and it is made publicly known. Until then, the system is illegally ignoring it.

 

Shockingly concerning how corrupt politics really is, all the big campaign groups on virtually every subject have chosen to ignore the court change and not be first to publicise its reality - even when they know it would benefit the people in whose cause they exist. This notably includes all the overseas aid charities, who should want to use the court change to help poor countries fight their debts, and could have publicised it through the make Poverty History campiagn, and all the immigration/asylum aid groups who could have used the court change to save lives by overturning the built-in injustices in the asylum system and preventing the state using corrupt short cuts to deport people to dangerous countries. This is how potent the court change is, yet everyone in charge of big campaing groups is calculating cynically that their own careers and favouredness at the top of politics are better served by ignoring the court change and taking part in its cover-up and illegal thwartation!

 

Whose victims now include your campaign too. You have had the law twisted to stop you winning a case you would win on fair logic.

 

The court change is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. (I'm in Scotland). Here are the facts of it set out simply, step by step.

 

Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by any party" instead of final. This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to a violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

 

The European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist, now requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions, and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.

 

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

 

World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.

 

So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.

 

America, Canada, Australia through my child brain research ethics dispute with Arizona university, stalled by an American government obstruction of justice.

Obviously there will be many cases making these 3 countries court change, so I should not be seen as seeking the ego fantasy of taking personal credit for it through my case, but time priority entitles me to put my case in the list like this.

Israel and Lebanon through the case in Belgium on the Sabra-Chatila massacres.

Kosovo through war crimes cases overlapping Yugoslavia.

North Cyprus through Turkey's UN legal challenge against South Cyprus joining the EU.

Belarus through its election dispute with OSCE election monitoring.

Vatican City through Sinead O'Connor's ordination as a Catholic priest.

Cuba through Elian Gonzalez.

Haiti through objecting to receiving petty crime deportations from America.

Antigua through its constitutional crisis on capital punishment.

Trinidad through its Privy Council case on capital punishment.

Jamaica through claims on both sides of American linked arms trade background to its violence.

Mexico through the Benjamin Felix drug mafia extradition to America.

Belize through Michael Ashcroft.

Guatemala through the child stealing and adoption scandal overlapping America.

El Salvador through the trade union related factory closure there by Nestle that made Transfair, the Fair Trade organisation in Italy, reject the Fair Trade mark for Nestle coffee.

Colombia through America's supposed human rights policy intervention in training Colombian police and military.

Venezuela through Luis Posada Carriles.

Guyana through the £12m debt claim dropped by Iceland (the shop).

Brazil through EU immigration unfairnesses to its football players, necessitating a mafia trade in false passports.

Argentina through its ECHR case on the General Belgrano.

Chile through General Pinochet.

Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay through Judge Garzon's citation of Henry Kissinger for the South American military conspiracy Operation Condor.

Chad and Senegal through a French action in Senegal obtaining Chad's former dictator Habre for trial under Pinochet's precedent.

Algeria through the Harkis' case from the Algerian war.

Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Morocco through the Insight News case.

Ivory Coast through the chocolate slavery scandal.

Ghana through the World Bank's Dora slave scandal.

Togo through the Lome peace accords for Sierra Leone, and their breaking as an issue in factional arms supply to there.

Burkina Faso through an arms trade case of smuggling through it from Ukraine to civil war factions in Sierra Leone and Angola.

Niger and Rwanda through Oxfam's case of buying an arms trade "end user certificate" for Rwanda in Niger.

Burundi through the war crimes trial of Rwanda's 1994 head of state.

Tanzania and Japan through the 2000 G8 summit, because Tanzania Social and Economic Trust broadcast a contradiction in implementing both its wishes for economic advance and its debt relief terms.

Mozambique through its cashew nuts dispute with the World Bank.

South Africa and Lesotho through a WHO case against American pharmaceutical ethics there.

Nigeria through reported Nigerian drug mafia crime in South Africa.

Dahomey and Gabon through their slave trafficking scandals overlapping Nigeria and Togo.

Zimbabwe through its land finances dispute with Britain.

Equatorial Guinea through the charges in Zimbabwe of a coup conspiracy.

Malawi through its arrests of Zimbabwean refugees callously deported from Britain.

Zambia through Cafod's collection of objections to food supply and health violations in its IMF structural adjustment program.

Namibia through the Herero genocide case against Germany.

Angola, Congo Kinshasa, Ecuador through arms trade smuggling to them from Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Congo Brazzaville through the Jean-Francois Ndenge case in France.

Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.

Madagascar, Mauretania, Nicaragua through the complaint by Jubilee USA and Africa Action that the IMF is breaking the agreed debt relief terms for them.

Ethiopia through the same, as well as earlier aid sector comment on its conditional debt relief.

Eritrea through its border dispute with Ethiopia.

Somaliland through its problem with Russian and South Korean coastal fishing.

Kenya through the Archer's Post munitions explosion case overlapping Britain.

Somalia through the UNHCR coordinator in Kenya protesting and exposing refugee deportations back to Somalia during the 2006-7 crisis there.

Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan's agreement to return children.

Mauritius through the Ilois rights judgment on the Chagos clearances.

Yemen through its problem with Spain over the missile shipment.

United Arab Emirates through Mohammed Lodi.

Saudi Arabia through the lawsuit by families of 911 victims.

Qatar through the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Bahrain through the call for American witnesses in Richard Meakin's case.

Kuwait through the terrorism arrests in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq through the weapons inspection dispute before the invasion. NB this does not mean the dispute or invasion were right!

Jordan through its threat of "unspecified measures" in its relations with Israel.

Egypt through its disputes with Tanzania and Kenya over use of Nile water.

Libya, Syria, Iran through the Lockerbie bomb trial.

Turkmenistan through Ukraine's gas pipeline dispute with Russia.

Kazakhstan through the American court action on oil contract corruption at government level there.

Uzbekistan through the ambassadorial exposee on evidence obtained by torture there and used in Western courts.

Kyrgyzia through its anti-terrorist border operations with Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan through Ben Laden.

Pakistan through a dispute between supporters of enslaved women and the British embassy for not helping them escape.

India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia through the World Wildlife Fund's campaign for tiger conservation, conflicting western romanticism with local populations affected by the homicidal absurdity of conserving a human predator.

Nepal through the Gurkhas' lawsuit for equal pay and pensions.

Vietnam through a church publicised refugee dispute overlapping China.

Cambodia through its enactment for a trial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust.

Laos through Peter Tatchell's application to arrest Henry Kissinger.

Thailand through Sandra Gregory.

Burma through the Los Angeles judgment on the Unocal oil pipeline.

Sri Lanka through its call for the Tamil Tigers' banning in Britain.

East Timor through public reaction to the judgment against trying Suharto.

Papua New Guinea through WWF's Kikori mangrove logging affair.

New Zealand through its ban on British blood donations.

Nauru through the Australian civil liberty challenge on the Tampa refugees.

Fiji through its land crisis's nonracial solubility by a Commonwealth constitutional question against rent and mortgages.

Tuvalu through environmentalist challenges to America's rejection of international agreements on global warming and sea level.

Marshall Islands through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal cases.

Philippines and Malaysia through the international police investigation in the Jaybe Ofrasio trial in Northern Ireland.

South Korea through its jurisdiction dispute with the American army.

North Korea through its apology to Japan for abductions.

[courtchange]

A note - if anyone finds this "over their head", the right thing to do is to go through it word by word, sentence by sentence, step by step. Each statement I have made is entirely clear, it's not full of technical stuff.

 

As it has a bearing on everyone's case, there is a solid responsibility not to disregard it. Anyone who is not told of it, their court case would be undermined. Everyone is entitled to know of it. There is a cover-up to stop, as you know.