Scandal of the Judges who Shame Justice

Now that’s a strange coincidence: as the analysis of comments by petition signers criticises judges and the judiciary, Matthew Davis of the Express publishes Scandal of the Judges who Shame Justice on Sunday, August 28, 2011.

Look at the wonderful comments regarding Norman Scarth and the judges he’s been victimised by and add your own!!!


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Daily Express, Mainstream Media, Publicity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Scandal of the Judges who Shame Justice

  1. earthlinggb says:

    You are showing extreme naivety here Sabine! You have read this at face value it seems and you have not considered what it is telling you more fully! While there are corrupt judges what you are overlooking in this piece is the fact it is as clear as day that judges are being silenced/suppressed by political correctness and it’s power. It is clear that judges are being “shamed” and then purged from a system which is willing to demonise them if they speak out CORRECTLY on certain issues. What will that leave in its wake? Simply this: Judges who will “toe the line”. Wake up Sabine!

    • earthlinggb says:

      So much, then, for the “Separation of powers” when the politicians/government can reprimand and purge those judges who are not toeing that political line. You see they are being criticized for being “political” in some instances while the fact is it is ALL political and it is simply that these judges are not saying what the politicians expect them to. If they made comments which agreed with the political environment of today then they would NOT be criticized for being political. The politicians/government would support them as being “correct” in their owrds and judgement. But you are missing this!

  2. earthlinggb says:

    Tell me this Sabine? How have I meant to defend myself against someone who has a brought about a malicious claim against me by suggesting I am anti semitic (in IGNORANCE of the actuality of it and perhaps WILLFUL ignorance at that) while the police just do as they are told in total ignorance while being disallowed from having an opinion and then the Judges are “shamed” and purged who understand what the true issue is and the true meaning of my words?
    The government/politicians then dictate how they wish people to be judged by ensuring they only have judges in the system who toe the line and are POLITICALLY correct.
    So then you have the most basic corruption in the system being managed by the politicians and ANYONE who researches and criticises a group of people who are part of a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY but who hide behind a lie that they are a RELIGIOUS people, is investigated for the offence of HATE CRIME?

    They’ve purged all the judges who have the good character to express not just an opinion but some basic truths. Do you then think the judges that are left are going to give someone a fair trial? Do you also think for one moment that any Judge or MP who comes to recognise or who does recognise the issue of the birth certificate is going to remain in office? Do you see why Hemmings etc will not touch on this subject and, because he does not and you don’t wish to upset your “gold-dust”, the con will continue?

    You’re not looking for true justice you are looking for a slight improvement in what is fundamentally unjust! Even that is proving near impossible!

    If you want improvement – real improvement – you will have to challenge the system. Something you seem unwilling to do!

  3. What is it with your birth certificate obsession? Sounds a bit bonkers to me.

    As for your criticism of Sabine, maybe you can direct me to your constantly managed and updated website so I can compare the two.

    • Jimmy says:

      Birth certificate obsession is explained here:

      It’s all the rage in certain circles at the moment.

    • earthlinggb says:

      And there you have it. Two people who read but have the inability to comprehend. Obviously incapable of thinkingatall nevermind aloud. Such a shame when your remedy stares you in the face.
      As for websites: You can “chuck” as much verbiage as you wish up on a website and it’ll get you nowhere. I’ll criticise anyone with the rigidity of mind (as you so adequately display) as to ignore obvious issues with facts to support them.
      Two quotes which sum your thinking,(or lack thereof) up
      “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
      “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions”.

      Sorry you can’t be helped if you’re unwilling to listen. Good luck to Norman. All the petitions, the website and the words have really had an impact haven’t they? Keep trying though but it won’t be your words that release him it’ll be their decision for one reason or another.

      Lastly, don’t ridicule something you obviously cannot even understand. It’s the height of arrogance and ignorance combined.

      • I don’t understand it because it is complete nonsense and not because I lack the intelligence. If you believe that freeman on the land guff then you have some serious problems and you need to get a grip.

        My issue with the courts and Mr Scarth is that an elderly gentleman should not be subjected to the treatment he has received. The question of whether or not the courts operate legally is surely a question that can be addressed after his release?

      • earthlinggb says:

        It’s not a matter of “believing” anything. It is a matter of understanding it after having studied it. While I did not and do not approach it (or anything else for that matter) from a “Freeman” perspective. I’ve had more experience of the “law” and its corruption directly first hand than you’ll ever have.
        Now if you wish to call something complete nonsense then you better have the capability and knowledge to back up a statement like that. But you don’t. It’s then nothing more than an ignorant opinion and still one based upon an obvious incapacity to grasp what you are being told.

        Answer the question or shut up: Why is the response from a Freedom of Information Act request stating that Social Services cannot remove a child with no birth certificate from its parents? What difference does it make? They do not even state that under certain circumstances the state CAN take the child. The answer is a flat “No”.

        So you think the birth certificate issue is “guff”? Then you enlighten us on this issue. But let me tell you you can’t because you have NO IDEA why the answer is “No”. So again, before you speak – think. You have the perfect “name”.

      • Jimmy says:

        Your letter says nothing of the sort. It just says that failure to register is not grounds for removal. You just have difficulty reading English.

        I see from the campaign website they don’t know which court will hear the appeal (hint: it’ll be the Court of Appeal. The clue is in the word “appeal”.) Nor do they appear to know which town it will be in (hint: it’s the capital city of England. Same building they were before). These are the clowns who describe themselves on the video as “legal experts”.

        Get the poor man a lawyer.


      • earthlinggb says:

        You’re welcome. I always feel it is necessary to point out when someone is being naive, ignorant or sycophantic. Just call when you wish to be advised.

      • Earthlinggb,

        You answer a question for me then – how many people have successfully avoided prosecution or been permitted to ignore the laws of the land by citing their Freeman mumbo-jumbo or by stating that, because their birth has not been registered they are somehow above the law? Here is another one – provide me with the name of a person who has had their child returned to them solely because the child’s birth had not been registered in the UK.

        I can answer your question easily – it is one of two things. Either the response is correct or it is not. I have no interest in the Freedom of Information request – I will admit that it did surprise me when I read it, but even if true, what actual difference does it make? Have you made a second FOI request to discover why the answer was given as “No”?

        You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and a penchant for investigation, so why not do something useful instead?

        When I first found this site I was impressed with the work being done here as I see a lot of it as assisting individuals who have been wronged by the state. It seems that Sabine is making a genuine and sustained effort to right wrongs committed by the state, but then you come on here and criticise her and her colleagues whilst offering meaningless nonsense as an alternative.

      • earthlinggb says:

        A great deal can be gleaned from even the editorial of this UN document on Child Registration. One can read about the benefits of registration without thinking about the opposing argument. Therefore, if you read it, consider the yang as well as the ying.

        From the text:

        “The child who is not registered at birth is in danger of being shut out of society – denied the right to an official identity, a recognized name and a nationality. In 2000, an estimated 50 million babies – more than two fifths of those born – were unregistered.1 These children have no birth certificate, the ‘membership card’ for society that should open the door to the enjoyment of a whole range of other rights including education and health care, participation and protection.
        This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist”.

        So there you have it in the UN’s own PLAIN language: In LEGAL TERMS they don’t exist. IF then, in legal terms, they do not exist then, by definition, the legal world can have NO AUTHORITY over them. The UN and legal world spell out the ADVANTAGES of this (all the benefits) but not the DISADVANTAGES which they trust you will not even begin to consider.

        As for knowing people who have used their understanding of these concepts in a court of so called “law”. I do know of people who have. However, as you can quite plainly see in the case of Norman Scarth (and thousands of others) the Courts/Judiciary aren’t listening to YOU either are they? Perhaps they think you talk “guff”? Their only protection is people’s ignorance and incapacity to think logically and also their use of force. They hide behind layers of guff themselves and present some uniformed/officialdom to have you believe they have legitimacy. And people like you bow to this “legitimacy”. Just like Sabine bows to her “gold dust”. MPs with no power and who are effectively impotent but they have a “position” which means to all of you who are so damned acquiescent, that they are not allowed to be challenged. You POOR SOULS! Locked in a mental prison trying to ask the Prison warden for the key!

      • earthlinggb says:

        Oh and one final thing Notthinking: NO-ONE has ever said a word about being “above the law”. Never. Again, this is displaying a mentality of simple mindedness and assumption.
        This is everything to do with capacity and which capacity one is acting within. Ask Ken Clarke re his “capacity” to attend Bilderberg without the law coming down heavily upon him (a total con on you and I which allows our Ministers a get out of jail card) or ask Her Majesty which “capacity” she is working in today? The capacity of Monarch of the UK? The capacity of EU citizen? Or the capacity of he PERSON (her personal capacity then). The latter being literally above the law (but in fact not: she has been given the LEGAL privilege of being above THAT “law”) but she is MEANT to be a “Constitutional Monarch” who gains such office by a Coronation/Constitutional Oath which she has broken an immense number of times and, therefore, she is entirely illigitmate.

        Capacity is everything in Law! But I can hear you now: “Ummmm…”.
        It’s a game and they’re winning because you do not know what the hell the game is!

  4. JM says:

    I wd re-iterate some of that so polictical, I took exception to,

    “Judge George Bathurst- Norman was censured after making anti-Israeli comments during a trial, including comparing the country’s actions to a Nazi regime. ”

    Surely that is integral tot he matterat hand? Whether the actionsof the accused were acting in self defence/ defence of another…..? It seems that it wa sthe govt in that case applying pressure to get the verdictthey wanted…..

    same with twatting people around the ehad with baseball bats, stabbing them or even using a chainsaw for example….contexxt is everyhting! surely?

  5. Pingback: Go away and be a good little victim – an extract of the latest comments by petition signers « Victims Unite!

  6. Pingback: Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial. « Victims Unite!

  7. Talita says:

    Venktesh BalakrishnanOctober 13, 2012I have been having this idea for quiet soimemte now..Gud Luck..looking forward to see photos n videos and the routes you go by..which vehicle you are planning to use??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s