ScotBlog Award for Go Lassie Go!

Total Politics Award for Go Lassie Go!

TypePad Profile

Get updates on my activity. Follow me on my Profile.
Share |
Mobilise this Blog
Blog powered by Typepad

« Is that a buzzard on your shoulder or are you just pleased to see me doctor? | Main | From Scotland to Cape Breton and back again »

July 06, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is mega important. To lodge a faulting of the reasoning of a corruptly incomplete decision, is their absolute automatic right. "The court change" establishes this.

Court change is a common sense name for a massive democratic advance in the nature of law, that nobody has ever tried to refute is real, but is under a wilful media silence. It urgently helps every asylum seeker. It abolishes finality for any legal decision, so it prevents bent decisions being taken that ignore parts of a case's evidence or reasoning.

Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Nevertheless, it's on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments.

This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.

This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

To Jo

As an accountant I can fully appreciate your views on "rules being rules". However I must ask you , and the officials at the UK border agency, what about compassion? I like to think that Scotland is a welcoming country and the prospect of a mother being forcibly seperated from her child would be more than enough reason to prevent such an event. Human rights recognise the right of the child and in this case the wishes of precious should be paramount. Let her stay in Glasgow and let her mother reamin here too...

ps Howzitgoin Joan - bet you the tele would never give you a blog!

This is a very difficult case indeed especially when the family are known and loved by so many in the land where they have now settled. Even so, the mother arrived in the UK with a husband who was here on a student visa. When they split she headed north and ended up here. The fact remains she was here illegally once that visa expired. There is no getting around this. I think the situation is impossible for all involved and those who make the final decisions are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If we make exceptions for some why can others not be shown the same compassion? Very tough situation indeed.


Dancing to a sorry middle England tune.

The link is not working.

"Not Found

We’re sorry, the page you were trying to load cannot be found. If you believe you’ve reached this page in error please check the address and try again."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo