Intelligence UK has investigated a multitude judicial impropriety cases over the last 3-years, we conclude, the UK’s justice system is not doing justice. It is our view that the leadership lack integrity and therefore the rules are bent and the rule of law is being diminished. Thousands are being defrauded and deprived of the right to a fair trial in the hands of unethical judges, many of whom are, in reality, not judges at all.
Intentionally deceptive action intended to procure unlawful gain
Fraud, whilst infinite in variety, comprises intentionally deceptive actions intended to procure unlawful gain or to deprive of a right that one is otherwise entitled. The activity can be perpetrated by one person, or, as is the case here, by many of the judicial establishment under the control of the Lord Chancellor and his ministerial department, the Ministry of Justice.
Fraudulent activity entails deceit, with the intent of illegally or unethically gaining at the expense of another, often involving the false representation of facts, whether by misrepresenting the true factual position, intentionally withholding material information, providing false statements, or claiming to be credited with accomplishments or qualities on fictitious terms. The latter applies to many of the UK’s judges, purporting to administer the rule of law, with honour, fairness and independence.
How can one administer the rule of law when they knowingly break the laws themselves, often twisting and manipulating the laws to suit their own sinister motives in favour of one party?
We need your help – Lobby your MP to have corrupt judges removed
We need your help with this one people, we are going to petition Parliament and the Crown to exercise their powers and sack all these oath breaking judges with immediate effect, in the interests of justice, for the good of our country and our future generations. We ask a favour, please take our template letter, modify it and send it to your MP, ideally both by email and in hard copy.
Judicial hall of shame – Judges who have acted with favour and ill-will
- The Lord Chief Justice, Ian Burnett of Maldon
- The Master of the Roles, Geoffrey Charles Vos
- Lord Justice Christopher Nugee
- Lord Justice Richard Arnold
- Lord Justice Colin Rimer
- His Honour Philip Mark Pelling
- Mr Justice Edward Murray
- Chief Registrar Nicholas Norman Briggs
- Mr Justice Robert John Miles
- Mr Justice Richard Andrew Snowden
- Deputy Chief Magistrate Tanweer Ikram
- Mr Justice Marcus Smith
- Mr Justice Timothy Miles Fancourt
- District Judge Michael Fanning
- District Judge Paul Currer
Judges that act with favour and ill-will are a fraud
Many of the UK’s judges are acting with favour and ill-will, making gains for those they favour, colluding with magic circle law firms, using the courts as cash cows, serving injustice and maltreating their victims. Thousands of innocent victims are being abused, hoodwinked out of their right to a fair, unbiased trial and dispossessed of their rights as a civilian in law. The perpetrators are, without question, a fraud, cheating the people, duped into belief they will find justice in the courts.
The terrorists operating from within
The tyrants responsible for this abuse are immoral, dishonourable quislings. Parasites, an infestation of our justice system, sucking the life blood out of those who come to court to seek justice, there to feed fellow parasites, unscrupulous lawyers who use the courts as “cash cows”. These terrorists have “blood on their hands“, causing more deaths by suicide, family break ups, loss of business, homelessness and loss of quality of life than all the Islamic State terrorists on British soil combined. They are harbored by the political establishment, funded by the public purse, paid well in excess of £120,000, per year, whilst they deliberately fail to do justice.
Law is designed to protect civilians from this tyranny – it’s not working
The Promissory Oaths Act of 1868 is law today, law that is sworn to be upheld by all those taking up judicial office. The judicial oath is of paramount importance in defending the constitutional principles that underpin any democratic state. One must be able to rely on the courts and the judges within them to administer the law and justice impartially and independently, for without, no business or individual is safe. All citizens must have confidence that cases will be decided fairly, according to law, but in the UK, the reality is, one cannot.
The historical foundation and all time constitutional importance of the judicial oath
The seeds of the UK justice system were first sown by Henry II in 1154 through to 1189, establishing a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges across the whole of the Kingdom, in contrast with over 40,000 today.
By the middle of the 13th century, knights had begun to join clerics on the bench. The first professional judges were appointed from the order of “serjents-at-law”. These were advocates who practiced in the Court of Common Pleas. Lawrence de Brok, a serjeant, became a judge in 1268, started the tradition, which lasted until 1875, of serjeants being the group from which judges were chosen. This was an important milestone in the evolution of modern justice, because it meant that the judiciary had real professional experience of the law before moving on to the bench. Over the years, serjeants were overtaken in popularity by barristers and solicitors.
During the 13th century the judiciary, instances of bribery were common and judges were regularly and openly accused of corruption. It was this flaw in the system that first led to the evolution of the oath. By 1346, all judges were obliged to swear that;
“I would in no way accept gift or reward from any party in litigation before them or give advice to any man, great or small, in any action to which the King was a party himself”
Even then, as is is the position today, that did not always curb the problem of judges being influenced by 3rd parties. In 1350, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, William de Thorpe, was sentenced to death for bribery. Thorpe accumulated great estates, particularly in Lincolnshire and it was said that his vast wealth was derived primarily from bribes. Thorpe was condemned to hanging and confiscation of all property. Bizarrely, by 1351, however, he was pardoned. In the subsequent year he was made baron of the exchequer. Whether that pardon was a result of political affiliations and favours is unknown, but highly likely.
In 1387, six judges advised King Richard II that a parliamentary commission set up to limit his own powers was ‘invalid and traitorous’. They were all impeached, convicted and sentenced to death, although only one was actually executed; the rest were banished to Ireland. There’s a long tradition of judges “looking after one another”, but more so today. Unsurprisingly, for two centuries after this the judiciary kept almost entirely away from politics.
Moving away from politics
During the turbulent 15th century, “the Wars of the Roses“, judges stood apart from both the Houses of Lancaster and York, and were largely unaffected by the changes in government. From 1540 onwards, Henry VIII had no judges in his Privy Council. His son Edward VI and daughter Mary I did include judges on their own Privy Councils, but Elizabeth I excluded them for 40 years. Again, in contrast to today, with all most senior judges being members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council.
On the face of it, the judiciary was becoming steadily more independent. By 1642, King Charles 1 was forced to agree to the appointment of judges “during good behaviour”, and their salaries were raised from under £200 to £1,000 a year in 1645. On the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, all judges, just 12 by that point, four in each of the common law courts, remained in office.
By 1668 the system of appointments “during pleasure” was reintroduced, and in the last 11 years of his reign Charles II sacked 11 of his judges. The next king, Charles’s brother James II, sacked 12 in just three years. This was bound to affect the quality of the judiciary: judges knew that their jobs were at risk if the sovereign did not like their judgments.
The solemn undertaking in law to Queen & Country to remain impartial
In 1868 the Promissory Oaths Act was made law, as it is today and all judges taking office must undertake to act in a constitutionally proper way, according to this law:
“I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria 2nd in the office of , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God.”
“Without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, means just that. Today however, many of our judges have been acting with favour and ill-will, coerced by political or other third party interference to favour one side. Judges that breach their oaths are a fraud, for they purport to be something that they are not. A judge that breaches his or her oath, is no longer a judge and has no right to preside over cases. The issue is, however, that in the UK, the judges are a law unto themselves, they are completely unregulated and unaccountable.
The Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP also took oath when swearing into office, an oath that he has breached many times over.
Buckland himself was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Bar Standards Board, with numerous newspaper articles in the public domain alleging that he has misled Parliament and the public.
“I, Robert James Buckland, do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
The supremacy of the rule of law is our birthright
The birthright (privileges or possessions that a person has or is believed to be entitled to as soon as he is born) of Englishmen and women depends upon the supremacy of the rule of law, its observance and their right to control their laws. The right to self-determination under the rule of our own law is the very fabric of the liberty of our society. The rules of law and custom that determine that we have as a “birthright” our liberty are all the prerequisite duty of office to uphold and maintain. This is sworn to be upheld by those taking up any office under the Crown.
We the people have the right to determine whether a judge, or any one of us has broken the law, the oath of judicial office clearly being law, but the fact is, when it happens, there is no regulation nor enforcement of the law. Judges that breach their oaths in the UK go completely unpunished. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office” (“JCIO”) does not deal with any allegation of bias, and its governors, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice do nothing to regulate fellow members of their cabal.
Parliament’s powers to remove corrupt members of the judiciary
Both Houses of Parliament, the Commons and Lords have the power to petition The Queen for the removal of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. We, the people have the constitutional to petition The Queen when all else fails. This is a right of all civilians, exercised by petition to Parliament for an Order in Council to the Office of Privy Council. In our wide experience, all such applications to Privy Council have, at all times, been suppressed. The constitutional right has been subverted by the establishment, until now.
The power of Parliament to remove a judge has in fact only ever been exercised once, when Sir Jonah Barrington was removed from office as a judge of the Irish High Court of Admiralty in 1830 for corruption after having misappropriated funds due to a litigant. No English High Court or Court of Appeal judge has ever been removed from office under these powers. Circuit and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor, however, he can only do so if the Lord Chief Justice agrees. That will clearly never happen.
The problem we have today, is that both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice cause of the problem, they fail to enforce the standards, because they lack integrity. The freemason culture, of “looking out for one’s brethren” prevails over the law and justice. They need to go with their fellow offenders, for real positive change to take place.
It’s time for action
All the judges we feature in our “hall of shame” have acted with favour and ill-will, under third party political coercion to prevent justice being served on corrupt corporations, lawyers and insolvency practitioners who widely abuse the system, using the courts as cash cows to feed often of the fruits of their own frauds.
It is we the people that can make a difference, so we, with your support, shall petition The Monarch, the House of Lord and Parliament to remove these purported judges, the state terrorists who have been inflicting their acts of tyranny on innocent parties in the name of justice, from our society, for the good of our country, our Constitution and all our future generations, so that nobody else has to suffer at the hands of a corrupt judiciary.
In the next article we shall be including a copy of our petition, which we ask to be spread far and wide.
We need your direct support in taking the petition to your Member of Parliament in your constituency, supporting us by pressing them to lobby Parliament to enforce this action. It will take less than 5-minutes, simply download our template, amend and send. Google the name of your MP to obtain their details.
Call for evidence of judicial impropriety / corruption
If you or anyone you know has been affected by a corrupt judge or judicial wrongdoing, get in touch with us, we may be able to help.
Please email us with brief details, setting out how you believe the judge in question has behaved improperly and we will carry out an initial investigation. We must all unite to combat this wide ranging issue.
Help us to help you, please comment, like and share this article throughout social media.