Secret Squirrel On The American Disease Of,Affluenza:The Cure.

.

Secret Squirrel here ponders things Judicial,specifically,that of Judges, and the methods used to create judges, being appointed and/or elected,dependent.It is noted here that Switzerland, Japan and the United States are exceptions to the rule in the rest of the world where judges are appointed in order to secure their independence. These three democracies allow some non-federal judges to be elected by popular vote on the grounds it helps prevent cronyism.Well, there’s not only cronyism, but a disease, of the America’s and their judicial structures, AND society, and it is aptly named and called by the accepting American public……….AFFLUENZA.
Accepted you say by the American people, well, that’s because whilst it can be commented on and about, nothing is and can be done about it, it is a disease, the rich in America have, THE AFFLUENT, whom, by and large are the effluent of society in the eyes of the American people. These affluent are a world apart, a class,in a classless system, yes a system where the people have no class at all, and the rich have it all. Now you in Europe,Japan,New Zaeland, Australia, won’t have an inkling of what’s being referred to. Well AFFLUENZA is a case,and cases, where in America the rich appear before judges and get off with no fines, no prison sentence,in some cases utter trial avoidance, and also no criminal records, and no civil lawsuit verdicts (except,of course, in their favor). It can be a part of corruption, Affluenza, as corruption is generally referred to as a system of bribes so commonplace at all levels of America rich,and oligarkic rule and government society, but the AFFLEUNZA also makes use of this CORRUPTION generally prevalent there. Now,is there a cure for this disease the Americans suffer from, if they wish to be cured and can be cured, is there a cure for Britain and other civilized nations of the world, to immunize, cure and prevent entirely? Yes, there is.

In most of the world where judicial selection is made by the executive branch from a civil service-like pool of professionals who have been trained in the equivalent of a school for judges,but not necessarily so,most coming from law schools, meaning they have been and are and were,firstly,lawyers. In the United States such is the case for federal and Supreme Court judges but not for the majority of state
judges who face popular election.

UN Special Rapporteur for judicial independence, Leandro Despouy gave his opinion on
juducial appointment systems………

“In the countries I’ve visited, especially the poorer ones, judges are chosen by the
executive branch and it is up to the executive to sanction them if necessary. In general I am not in favor of elected judges. They should be chosen on a merit basis based on their knowledge and independence so they can resist all pressures to conform to the wishes of elected officials.”

However here we have a dicotomy,a conundrum,appointed they can be sanctioned
by,dis-appointed by,and are in fact, really not capable of resisting, the wishes of
certain specific government officials.Conventional wisdom says that those who appoint judges affect future judicial decisions.Judgeships could be,and are,bought and sold according to the personal preferences of those making the selection,appointments degrade the quality of the judiciary. It is not uncommon for appointed judges to loose sight of what they are supposed to be doing to start actually writing new laws themselves through the decisions they make. And is anyone really so naivé as to believe that the current appointed “independent” federal judiciary has not become a political branch? As Thomas Jefferson had warned:

“Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.””The exemption of the judges from that….from election…..is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it [control] from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Elected ones, are subject to the people, and specifically can be removed with the next election, and can be influenced by the wishes of the public at large,which is, of course, for justice,equality,equity in the judicial processes.Voters in many US states think justice is too lenient with criminals and they demand harsher sentencing. They prefer that a judge who ignores the popular sentiment be voted out of office,thus making them accountable to the people themselves,judges must be there for be professional, objective and independent.In America,nationwide, 87 percent of all state court judges face elections, and 39 states elect at least some of their judges, according to the National Center for State Courts.

Some states have recently considered proposals that would abolish the election of State judges and replace it with a system of appointed judges who would face periodic retention elections. While supporters of this plan argue that retention elections will keep judges accountable to the voters, it is irrefutable that this plan will give judges a level of insulation from the public they have never before experienced and make them more unaccountable than ever before. The folly of this proposal is made clear both by history as well as the lessons of other States that have adopted such a plan.Originally the Founding Fathers of America feared tyranny from the Judiciary,so they placed severe limitations on that branch, employed the powers of impeachement to remove them quickly should the need arise, as Alexander Hamilton explained, “the practice of impeachments was a bridle”,a way to keep judges accountable to the people,such that the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from the judiciary.For judges to campaign and win voter support actually prevents the judiciary from becoming a political branch and running a political agenda.

In the 2002 election, the appointed New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the State law
declaring that a candidate’s name may be replaced on the ballot only if the “vacancy
shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election” and somehow decided that the 35th day before the election fulfilled the same legal requirements as the 51st day before the election. (Recall that the Democrat candidate was lagging far behind his Republican opponent in the polls; the Democrats convinced the unelected judges to place a more viable candidate on the ballot – in violation of the State law – and Democrats therefore won a U. S. Senate seat they were destined to lose.)

Elected judges know that if they make such agenda-driven decisions, they will face
removal by voters for contempt of,and violation of,State law. When judges are elected, the selection process is totally open to the public. The reasons why a particular individual may be chosen are readily visible to inquiring citizens or the press, and State Legislatures can actually specify the minimum qualifications for each judicial office,thus ensuring intelligent choices be presented to the voter.Judicial independence is essential to a functioning democracy,and the regulation of judges requires involvement of we, the people. This is what needs be done in America to cure the people of affluenza, it is a cure.However in America we know that for the rich this cure is far too expensive and it is the affluent who control government and judicial structures such that the disease will rather continue,and in fact spread there. For Britain and the rest of the world, Squirrel has here mentioned the preventative, the cure for a disease that yet doesn’t ail the people, but which some day well might. Squirrel suggest it be best to apply the cure Squirrel has discovered. Gesundheit!

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel On The Sale Of Court Orders.

Secret Squirrel has seen a development in England.of a disorder in the court, where it seems judges have misadapted contra mundum orders and issued them in such a fashion that they are useable by, and favor only, those of substantial financial means,virtually exclusively.In short rendering selling legalities,through the judiciary.Originally these orders were meant for cases of national security,wherein the nation did not wish disclosure,agents names,activities,official secrets,secret technologies etc etc et all.Also it was applied to those beneath legal age for whatever crimes they perpetrated,participated in, or witnessed.

However, in those cases,it is believed THEY were not specifically charged for these orders.But this was suddenly evolved,by the judges,and applied,in all their wisdom,or whatever one prefers to call it, and they used it,sold it actually,to apply to cases where the lives of particular court “luminaries” or various sorts, savory or not,such as Footie(soccer) players,actors and actresses,such

as, say, Lindsay Lohann, or the baglady of music,Amy Winehouse, would otherwise have had their lives threatened with disclosure of their participation in necessary specific court events.I short, we’re being deprived,we the public,of the juicy tidbits or their lives and doings affecting that and any other specific court case,should they decide to buy,purchase as it were, at their level, the contra mundum orders,unaffordable by those of lesser means. However, it seems some disorder that has emerged concerning these much more prolific orders,which it seems,  spawned yet more and more, emerged and were mutated in the light of the courts and the day, such that they are becoming illuminated by those members of Parliament such that they are considering wresting the abilities to issue such orders from the judges and placing said ability to issue, firmly in the hands of Parliament,in the hands of the people,where it most directly belongs, out of specific necessity.In short judicial equality may emerge at all levels, such that
it can be enjoyed in the courts by all,fairly, or thence by none, in interesting civil and other issues.

The Telegraph,and the Daily Mail,reveal that David Cameron is himself ‘uneasy’ about creeping use of these injunctions to gag press and has said he feels ‘uneasy’ about judges increasingly using these so called super-injunctions to create privacy law in Britain.David Cameron has voiced his concern at the increasing use of injunctions,actually misuse.His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have prevented the press from reporting the identification of celebrities.
Mr Cameron said it should be up to Parliament not judges to decide the extent of press freedom and said recent judgements had left him feeling ‘a little uneasy.’

On Wednesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Eady agreed to issue a “contra mundum” order – effectively a worldwide ban – in the case of a man who sought to prevent publication of material about his private life.It is thought to be the first time such an order has been issued in a privacy case.However,there is the right to privacy, but also the right for the public to know,the right to a public trial,totally open and above board,there must be open justice, and evidence presented open to all,the trial entirely being recorded and on the public record.What is effectively occurring is that the rich and famous can openly buy their way out of scandal, while the common everyman,Joe The Plumber,cannot,and the law shouldn’t be just for the rich and famous.The entire event as the judges are running things, is utterly and completely unfair to the average citizen,the true peers of the
realm,of whom there is the very greatest of majority,and much more so to those of extremely limited means.The law should be accessible to,in it’s entirety, to all, in all fairness and equality,both judicial and financial.It must not consist of court orders only to those who can afford them,judgements for those who can afford them.The British judiciary must be open to, and affordable by all, in all equity,baring inequity, and inequality.

The latest ‘contra mundum’ decision marks yet another step in the move by the courts to extend protections for the right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.However such an order is accessible only at cost, not free to all, only those of greater financial means can enjoy such a freedom, whereas the European convention is in the spirit of things and the law, supposedly available and accessible to all equally, in equality and equity, and not at cost, not a right available to those of financial means by the abilities to purchase said right in order to secure it.)The gagging order is also preventing miscarriages of justice from being investigated, according to an MP campaigning against secrecy in Britain’s courts.John Hemming said the rising tide of injunctions granted by the courts threatened to contravene the Magna Carta.It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.They are not compliant with the rules of a fair
trial”The rich and famous can pay their way out of scandal. But it also marks a further advance in the steps the courts are prepared to take in restricting the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.Most assuredly this order as it is is thence a violation of the right to freedom of expression, particularly with respect to actual disclosures in a free and open trial, or judicial proceeding.

A contra mundum order is intended to apply forever, and it applies to all those who might come to know of it – as opposed to forbidding the publication of details by a specific newspaper or journalist.The cost of obtaining an order varies but can run
into the tens of thousands of pounds.It’s not something that the man on the street can do without any thought.These things are still few and far between. There was a rash of them but they’re still comparatively rare.

In short the order provides “privacy of disclosure”, for those who can afford it,and incorporates the hidden land mine of affecting  all those who might come to know of it,or in a sense over hear details of it, in a rather unfair manner as they become subject to suits.The order is also only really accessible to those of means, not to all regardless of financial statures and abilities.In short an order by purchase,justice can be purchased, thence,at least in part.It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of the Magna Carta.” Clause 29 of the Magna Carta states that “we will sell to no man … either justice or right”.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has voiced concern over the process, pointing out that if the gagged party wishes to contest an order they risk incurring a large cost.This particularly unbalances the judicial process further, making justice
accessible,achievable, and purchasable, by those only who can afford it,not an equality for those who can’t, those of meagher means.”It’s a very unbalanced system won by the force of money and not by the force of arguments,” he said. “The system is weighted in favour of those with the money.

“I’m not a big fan of kiss-and-tell but I’m not in favour of ‘if you tell you go to jail’.”Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor?”
“What we’ve got in this country now is a privacy law that wasn’t brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided what they want and that’s what they’ve achieved.Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous – or anyone – does deserve to be protected but only the rich can afford this, so it’s purely a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that’s not right.”

Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis supposedly lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe,but it is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof,as pleases them ,with privilege for some,for a fee, a large fee,available and affordable by only a very elite few,hardly justice and equality, and civil and human rights for all,which is as it should be,but so very sadly, isn’t.