I've found that one of the Criminals In Power criminal cases is being cited as case law and precedent in other cases. One of these was probably the most famous and high-profile criminal case in Britain for a short time in late 2019.
Somebody brought a private prosecution against Prime Minister Boris Johnson. At least, he was PM then and still is as I write this, but as that's less than 3 weeks before the impending general election that could change very soon (maybe). The claim was that whilst Boris was Mayor of London in 2016 he committed acts of misconduct in public office by knowingly and deliberately telling lies to the public in relation to the well-known claim that if the UK leaves the European Union then that will save £350 million pounds per week which could then be given to the NHS instead. This claim was also famously emblazoned on the side of a bus. Frankly, in view of the near-total corruption in the British establishment, I was very surprised that this case even made it past the first hurdle. Then again, the first step in any criminal prosecution is to 'lay an information' and provide prima facie evidence of the claim to a magistrate, and in the Criminals In Power saga a couple of magistrates and a District Judge were the ONLY public officials to ever actually obey the law and carry out their sworn duties required of them genuinely, honestly, fairly and impartially without being influenced and corrupted by the powerful Criminals In Power. The Boris case was quickly thrown out at a higher level. I haven't studied the matter in detail, but it appears that the main counter-argument was that he isn't guilty because he was lying in his own time and not whilst on duty in his official capacity as Mayor. As I say, I haven't studied and considered this in detail so haven't come to any conclusion as to whether Boris is or is not guilty, but I do note that one of the judges involved in making this ruling was the criminal Rafferty.
The official title of the CriminalsInPower case involved is:-
R (on the application of Director of Public Prosecutions) v Sunderland Magistrates Court [2014] EWHC 613
This is the case in which the (then) DPP Alison Saunders, the head of the CPS, the Criminal Protection Society, sorry I mean the Crown Prosecution Service, no, sorry I was right in the first place, claimed that the prosecution of members of her gang who had committed serious offences of corruption were not guilty of their serious crimes on the grounds that she says so. You might find it interesting, amusing and thought-provoking that the case is brought in the name of R, or regina, or the Queen, so theoretically, technicallly, legally, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the criminal who who has perverted the course of justice, committed serious violations of human rights, committed crimes against humanity. Bringing legal actions in the name of the monarch is just a weird administrative convention, I really don't blame the Queen at all for what the criminals did in her name. Over a number of decades several others have commented and mused on this peculiarity
.
As this case is being cited and used in other legal proceedings I think it's important to look at it in detail. By June 2012 I had faced total corruption and total refusal by all public officials I had contacted to do anything about the theft of my money by Swinburne and Jackson and the mass of corruption and crime which followed. I decided to contact the Crown Prosecution Service. I prepared an account of the crimes and sent it to Wendy Williams the (then) Chief Crown Prosecutor for the region. She replied saying that the CPS could not do anything at all because the police had not referred a report of the crimes to the CPS. I didn't believe her highly suspicious claim. Obviously the police were never going to send a report including their own crimes to prosecutors. It's obviously ludicrous to say that prosecutors cannot prosecute unless criminals report their own crimes. I checked and discovered two vitally important documents - the Code For Crown Prosecutors and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Section 1.5 of the code states:-
"Although the prosecution service works closely with the police and other Investigators, it is independent of them. The independence of prosecutors is of fundamental constitutional importance."
Clearly this means that the CPS cannot be dependent upon the police to refer a report of crimes to them before they can take any action.
The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 states:-
"...every Crown Prosecutor shall have all the powers of the Director (of Public Prosecutions) as to the institution and conduct of proceedings ..."
and later goes on to state:-
"It shall be the duty of the Director ... to institute and have the conduct of criminal proceedings in any case where it appears to him that -
(i) the importance or difficulty of the case makes it appropriate that proceedings should be instituted by him: or
(ii) it is otherwise appropriate for proceedings to be instituted by him ..."
I wrote to Williams again to point out these facts and to ask her to explain herself. She didn't reply, but instead a response came from Christopher H. Enzor the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. He refused to provide any reason, explanation or justification and simply referred me to Williams' letter. He refused to take any action of any kind at all and said that the CPS would ignore any further contact from me.
Later in the saga it became obvious that no public official was ever going to do their duty to prosecute any of the criminals involved in these matters and that the only possible means of obtaining justice would be by bringing private prosecutions. I researched how to do this and after much consideration decided that I should begin by prosecuting the criminal Shireece Webster of the IPCC who had effectively ignored my appeal against Northumbria Police's so-called 'investigation report' and pronounced all Northumbria Police officers and staff to be completely innocent of the catalogue of serious crimes and acts of massive corruption which they had committed.
I 'laid an information' to begin the prosecution of Webster and was ecstatic when magistrates issued a summons. Clearly the CPS have informers within the magistrate's courts under orders to notify them when anyone tries to bring a private prosecution. I was alarmed when I received a letter from Ian Palmer of the CPS. It was pretty obvious that their only reason for interfering would be to pervert the course of justice by stopping the prosecution.
(Work in progress -more to folllow)
Somebody brought a private prosecution against Prime Minister Boris Johnson. At least, he was PM then and still is as I write this, but as that's less than 3 weeks before the impending general election that could change very soon (maybe). The claim was that whilst Boris was Mayor of London in 2016 he committed acts of misconduct in public office by knowingly and deliberately telling lies to the public in relation to the well-known claim that if the UK leaves the European Union then that will save £350 million pounds per week which could then be given to the NHS instead. This claim was also famously emblazoned on the side of a bus. Frankly, in view of the near-total corruption in the British establishment, I was very surprised that this case even made it past the first hurdle. Then again, the first step in any criminal prosecution is to 'lay an information' and provide prima facie evidence of the claim to a magistrate, and in the Criminals In Power saga a couple of magistrates and a District Judge were the ONLY public officials to ever actually obey the law and carry out their sworn duties required of them genuinely, honestly, fairly and impartially without being influenced and corrupted by the powerful Criminals In Power. The Boris case was quickly thrown out at a higher level. I haven't studied the matter in detail, but it appears that the main counter-argument was that he isn't guilty because he was lying in his own time and not whilst on duty in his official capacity as Mayor. As I say, I haven't studied and considered this in detail so haven't come to any conclusion as to whether Boris is or is not guilty, but I do note that one of the judges involved in making this ruling was the criminal Rafferty.
The official title of the CriminalsInPower case involved is:-
R (on the application of Director of Public Prosecutions) v Sunderland Magistrates Court [2014] EWHC 613
This is the case in which the (then) DPP Alison Saunders, the head of the CPS, the Criminal Protection Society, sorry I mean the Crown Prosecution Service, no, sorry I was right in the first place, claimed that the prosecution of members of her gang who had committed serious offences of corruption were not guilty of their serious crimes on the grounds that she says so. You might find it interesting, amusing and thought-provoking that the case is brought in the name of R, or regina, or the Queen, so theoretically, technicallly, legally, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the criminal who who has perverted the course of justice, committed serious violations of human rights, committed crimes against humanity. Bringing legal actions in the name of the monarch is just a weird administrative convention, I really don't blame the Queen at all for what the criminals did in her name. Over a number of decades several others have commented and mused on this peculiarity
.
As this case is being cited and used in other legal proceedings I think it's important to look at it in detail. By June 2012 I had faced total corruption and total refusal by all public officials I had contacted to do anything about the theft of my money by Swinburne and Jackson and the mass of corruption and crime which followed. I decided to contact the Crown Prosecution Service. I prepared an account of the crimes and sent it to Wendy Williams the (then) Chief Crown Prosecutor for the region. She replied saying that the CPS could not do anything at all because the police had not referred a report of the crimes to the CPS. I didn't believe her highly suspicious claim. Obviously the police were never going to send a report including their own crimes to prosecutors. It's obviously ludicrous to say that prosecutors cannot prosecute unless criminals report their own crimes. I checked and discovered two vitally important documents - the Code For Crown Prosecutors and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Section 1.5 of the code states:-
"Although the prosecution service works closely with the police and other Investigators, it is independent of them. The independence of prosecutors is of fundamental constitutional importance."
Clearly this means that the CPS cannot be dependent upon the police to refer a report of crimes to them before they can take any action.
The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 states:-
"...every Crown Prosecutor shall have all the powers of the Director (of Public Prosecutions) as to the institution and conduct of proceedings ..."
and later goes on to state:-
"It shall be the duty of the Director ... to institute and have the conduct of criminal proceedings in any case where it appears to him that -
(i) the importance or difficulty of the case makes it appropriate that proceedings should be instituted by him: or
(ii) it is otherwise appropriate for proceedings to be instituted by him ..."
I wrote to Williams again to point out these facts and to ask her to explain herself. She didn't reply, but instead a response came from Christopher H. Enzor the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. He refused to provide any reason, explanation or justification and simply referred me to Williams' letter. He refused to take any action of any kind at all and said that the CPS would ignore any further contact from me.
Later in the saga it became obvious that no public official was ever going to do their duty to prosecute any of the criminals involved in these matters and that the only possible means of obtaining justice would be by bringing private prosecutions. I researched how to do this and after much consideration decided that I should begin by prosecuting the criminal Shireece Webster of the IPCC who had effectively ignored my appeal against Northumbria Police's so-called 'investigation report' and pronounced all Northumbria Police officers and staff to be completely innocent of the catalogue of serious crimes and acts of massive corruption which they had committed.
I 'laid an information' to begin the prosecution of Webster and was ecstatic when magistrates issued a summons. Clearly the CPS have informers within the magistrate's courts under orders to notify them when anyone tries to bring a private prosecution. I was alarmed when I received a letter from Ian Palmer of the CPS. It was pretty obvious that their only reason for interfering would be to pervert the course of justice by stopping the prosecution.
(Work in progress -more to folllow)