judge

It is easier to get sent to prison in England for contempt of court than for assaulting a fellow human being. I don’t mean that it is easier to prove. I mean that once proven, contempt of court is more likely to result in imprisonment than assault – even a gang assault that leaves one’s victim seriously injured.

In the case to which I refer, a tribunal of arrogant bullies – sorry judges – has sentenced a juror by the name of Theodora Dallas to six months imprisonment for carrying out internet research at home on the defendant in at a criminal trial on which she was sitting. The tribunal, consisting of Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Openshaw and the risibly named Lord Judge, also denied their victim – sorry the convicted party – leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course she can apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. But the fact that the judge’s denied her this right – in a case that obviously has implications that require the Supreme Court’s attention, shows that they are more concerned with flexing their muscles than with the administration of justice.

Now first of all – lest any criminals or their friends accuse me of missing the point – let me stress that checking out a defendant online IS contempt of court and that the jurors were all warned not to. And contempt of court can draw a custodial sentence. But this was a first offence and we are always told – by our judges no less – that first-time offenders should be treated with leniency. At least that is what we are told when they have committed assault or affray or even ABH.

Yet apparently those offences are not as serious, in the eyes of our esteemed judiciary, as checking out an accused online. It seems that the same judges who let violent criminals off with non-custodial sentences and who water down the sentences of even the most serious violent offenders, choose to get tough on a woman who committed contempt of court. In other words, beat the crap out of a private citizen by all means but don’t dare ruffle the feathers of the judiciary.

Unfortunately for their Lordships, ruffling the feathers of judges is what I do. So let’s consider the judges who reached this decision.

Only a week ago, Lady Justice Hallett reduced the prison sentence of Viktor Akulic who had raped a woman, knocked her to the ground and stamped on her head. Then when the woman reported the attack to the police, Akulic went round to her home and threatened to kill her. Akulic had already spent half his adult life in prison for other offences, including the rape of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL. And Lady Justice Hallett KNEW ALL OF THIS. Yet although it would be obvious to all but a mental defective that Viktor Akulic WILL re-offend as soon as he gets the chance, Lady Justice Hallett and her co-conspirators – sorry judges – reduced his sentence from a minimum of eight-and-a-half years before he could apply for parole to seven.

Okay so much for Lady Justice Hallett, but what about Lord Judge? Well he’s an interesting case. In 2009 parliament finally decided to get rid of that legal dinosaur that allowed people who kill their spouses to use their spouse’s adultery or infidelity as a defence, watering down murder to manslaughter. The new law stated that “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity IS TO BE DISREGARDED.” So although loss of control could reduce murder to manslaughter, alleged infidelity  (and it was very easy for the man’s lawyer to invent such infidelity) could no longer be used to achieve such reduction.

This reform was long overdue for many reasons, including the fact that the old law was almost invariably used by men to get off the hook for murdering their wives and almost never in those rare cases of wives murdering their husbands. But Lord Judge decided that he and his colleagues didn’t have to bother with something so trivial as the law or the will of parliament (nor indeed for the right of women not to be murdered). So he decreed – in brazen defiance of the law – that infidelity could be considered as adding to the “potency” of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control.

In other words, Lord Judge knowingly subverted the will of parliament and willfully deprived women of adequate protection of their right to life, by deliberately misinterpreting the law in pursuit of his nefarious, misogynistic agenda.

The Honourable Justice Openshaw on the other hand, seems to be a reasonably decent judge who does not let criminals get away with it. This might be because his own father – also a judge – was stabbed to death by a criminal whom he had sentenced to borstal for theft.

However, there is something deeply troubling in the case of Theodora Dallas. The reason that she was caught was because she told other jurors what she had found about the accused and one of them reported it to an usher. But the thing is that jurors swear an oath not to disclose anything said in the jury room and jury ushers also swear oaths not to ask the jurors any question other than have they reached a verdict and not to “suffer” that anything be disclosed to them.

So in order for Miss Dallas to have been caught, at least two other people must have breached their oaths. I’m not saying that what Miss Dallas did was right. But the fact that she was sentenced to six months for a non-violent first offence while thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, child rapists get off early and murderous husbands get off with the lesser charge of manslaughter, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the priorities of our much vaunted judiciary.

 

I remember after Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molesting charges, a silly little star-struck English girl who had flown all the way out to America to “support” him, telling a reporter that the verdict proved that the three people who had accused Michael Jackson of abusing them (at different times) were “liars.”  Of course she was talking a load of rubbish, but it gave a powerful insight into the warped mind of the immature, adolescent fan – the type who loves the famous and wants to be famous herself (probably a “modu”).

I remembered wondering at that time if the empty-headed little idol-worshipper would have dropped everything and travelled thousands of miles to support a poor man accused of a crime whom she thought to be innocent.  But then again, perhaps the question was unfair because she wouldn’t even know of such a case.  It was obvious that she didn’t take an active interest in miscarriages of justice, controversial prosecutions or the innocence project.  She was simply a muddle-headed schoolgirl who wanted to support her idol regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty.

I remember also Michael Jackson’s claim that children come to his bedroom and that he “couldn’t stop them.” However, as one news organization pointed out at the time: no one gets to Michael Jackson’s bedroom unless he wants them to.

The reason this all came back just now is because it is these same empty-headed lunatics who were demonstrating outside a Los Angeles  courtroom for a very different reason these last few weeks.  This time it was not to support the accused but to crucify him.  That Michael Jackson’s death was the result of the cumulative effect of his lifestyle, they simply didn’t care.  That Michael Jackson was an accident waiting to happen mattered not.  That Michael Jackson was a man who was not used to hearing the word no – at least not since he escaped the clutches of his violent father – was of no significance to them.  That Conrad Murray had been on Jackson’s medical team for less than a month was ignored by jurors and Jackson fans alike.

As far as these moronic fans were concerned, Michael Jackson could do no wrong.  When he was accused of wrongdoing, his accusers were “liars.”  When he was the victim of his own poor life choices, he was the victim of others.

In the trial itself, the prosecution lawyers made mountains out of molehills – such as the fact that the doctor used an unorthodox method of CPR.  This may have a mistake, but it hardly adds up to negligence.  It was merely used to make him seem like a man who didn’t care – when in fact all it shows is that he was a man who lost his head in a crisis.  That shouldn’t happen to a doctor, but it can.  Worse still, the defence lawyers put up a surprisingly lacklustre defence – almost as if they didn’t want to be tainted by trying too hard to help the man whom the Jackson fans “knew” was guilty – in case it had a knock-on effect on their defence of others in the future.  (This actually happened with Barry Scheck in the Louise Woodwood case after he had successfully co-defended O J Simpson.)

With such a one-sided contest, it is hardly surprising that the baying mob of Jackson fans got what they wanted. La Toya Jackson described the verdict as “wonderful.”  Now La Toya Jackson has had a less than happy life, so perhaps she should not be judged too harshly.  After escaping from Jack Gordon, her abusive husband (who had been hired by her father to manage her career) she claimed that it was Gordon who had forced her to support the accusations of child molesting aimed against brother Michael.  This may be true, but in the course of supporting those accusations, she did raise a legitimate question when she asked whether it was appropriate for an adult male to be taking other people’s children into his bed when he was not related to them or their parents.

Now I am not saying that I am in any way happy about Michael Jackson’s death.  His first hit, Got to be there, remains one of my all-time favourites, as is the deeply moving She’s out of my life.  But there seems to be something rather malicious and stomach-turning about the sight of those fanatics who supported Jackson when he had done wrong, baying for the blood of a man who was only on the periphery of responsibility to Jackson’s untimely death.  It is their double-standards, their sickening idol-worship and their general lack of morality that I find so deeply offensive.

 

The corrupt and crooked judges on Britain’s Supreme Court, and the equally corrupt judge’s on Britain’s Deportation Appeals Tribunals, have dishonestly misinterpreted the European Convention’s “right to a family life” for the nefarious purpose of enabling foreign criminals to remain in Britain contra to law.  In one case it was an adult who wanted to live with his mummy.  In another it was a man who wanted to live with his girlfriend.  No honest judge can really believe that the right to a family life implies the right of an adult to live with his parents or his girlfriend.

Some of them are murderers who do not even have the right to life.  And yet these dishonest judges let them stay in this country on a basis of their willfully false interpretation of the “right to a family life.”

There are also others who have the right to live here under the European citizenship law.  For example the vile and evil Learco Chindamo who viciously murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence when the brave Mr Lawrence tried to protect a child from a beating at the hands of cowardly Chindamo’s gang is allowed to live in this country because he is a citizen of Italy.

Chindamo learned violence from his father who is currently in prison for murdering his girlfriend.  Perhaps this explains why Chindamo’s gang also committed rape.  Chindamo claims to regret murdering Philip Lawrence, but we only have his word for that – and I wouldn’t place too much confidence in Chindamo’s word.