A dangerous "sovereign administrator" movement misleads the public into believing the rule of law has been abolished and there are no constraints on legislative or executive power
Finally we are getting to the heart of the problem. I may be exceeding my own remit here, but it seems from this article that *Parliament* may have deliberately gone about setting this situation up, *knowingly* (as used by Q).
Is it a considered and deliberate intention to wreck at least the lowest level of the judicial structure in order to make it easier for "authorities" to filch money from the wallets of the citizens? It sure looks like it to me, but I'm not an expert.
And at least some high-level bureaucrats appear to have decided to (ab?)use that delegated power to gain "power over" regular citizens that they have never had before in British jurisprudence, which for almost 1,000 years has been a light to the world in many ways. Such a shame.
A question: Did Parliament do the same for the County and Crown court systems, or only for the magistrate system (or, more sneakily, does the loss of critical precedents in the magistrate system *enable* erosion of precedent in the other two systems even if the laws currently authorizing those two systems are properly written)? If for just the magistrate section, that would indicate the originating impetus for the change was more pecuniary than to oppress. If for all three, then it would seem the originating impetus was more for oppression than for money. At this point I think that distinction needs to be considered and if possible, definitively determined.
OMG, the deeper one goes down the rabbit hole the worse it gets. God, save us all !
If/when the lawful retribution arrives for these traitors i hope they face the full weight of justice - minus any magnanimity.
Finally we are getting to the heart of the problem. I may be exceeding my own remit here, but it seems from this article that *Parliament* may have deliberately gone about setting this situation up, *knowingly* (as used by Q).
Is it a considered and deliberate intention to wreck at least the lowest level of the judicial structure in order to make it easier for "authorities" to filch money from the wallets of the citizens? It sure looks like it to me, but I'm not an expert.
And at least some high-level bureaucrats appear to have decided to (ab?)use that delegated power to gain "power over" regular citizens that they have never had before in British jurisprudence, which for almost 1,000 years has been a light to the world in many ways. Such a shame.
A question: Did Parliament do the same for the County and Crown court systems, or only for the magistrate system (or, more sneakily, does the loss of critical precedents in the magistrate system *enable* erosion of precedent in the other two systems even if the laws currently authorizing those two systems are properly written)? If for just the magistrate section, that would indicate the originating impetus for the change was more pecuniary than to oppress. If for all three, then it would seem the originating impetus was more for oppression than for money. At this point I think that distinction needs to be considered and if possible, definitively determined.