Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 So four MP's got to court charged with expenses fraud. Initial defence if I remember correctly was that the court had no jurisdiction under Parliamentary priviledge. They refused to sit in the dock, was that significant? I am reminded of the Freemen on the Land arguments about Statutary Law being subsidiary to Common Law and resting on law of contract between the Government and the Governed. Stuff about resisting court "trickery" by which consent is presumed according to Admiralty Law principles, the "Dock" being an old Admiralty court term, and confirmation that one "Understands" being taken to mean one "Stands Under" the Statute and the authority of the court. Maybe that's a big red herring. Anyway, have I just been distracted by overlayed "News", did I just miss the outcome or has it all been pushed out of sight? Have there been injunctions, or maybe a super-injunction. How would we know? Am I just ignorant or is something going on here. I really have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Come on somebody! Is it just me that doesn't know or what? Any feedback appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Come on somebody! Is it just me that doesn't know or what? Any feedback appreciated. Give it time. The TFHers are in a team meeting atm. Didn't you get the memo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Give it time. The TFHers are in a team meeting atm. Didn't you get the memo? No, I've been kicked out or the Ancient Order of the Tin Foil Hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 No, I've been kicked out or the Ancient Order of the Tin Foil Hat. Me too - but by default. I couldn't find the clubhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Me too - but by default. I couldn't find the clubhouse. It's underground, hard to see the entrance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 It's underground, hard to see the entrance. Like the Wombles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Like the Wombles? Don't go giving away their secrets!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 No they lost the first court case. i.e the Judge found that parlimentary priviledge did not apply. They have appealed this decision, as is thier right, to the supreme court. What was interesting is that they were still in the Labour mode of massive spending and asked for 6 Barristers to represent them at taxpayers expense. The Judge said that the country was in austerity mode and could not afford such largesse and they could all share one barrister at taxpayers expense. Ha Ha, well done judge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8001641/MPs-expenses-case-taken-to-Supreme-Court.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 No they lost the first court case. i.e the Judge found that parlimentary priviledge did not apply. They have appealed this decision, as is thier right, to the supreme court. What was interesting is that they were still in the Labour mode of massive spending and asked for 6 Barristers to represent them at taxpayers expense. The Judge said that the country was in austerity mode and could not afford such largesse and they could all share one barrister at taxpayers expense. Ha Ha, well done judge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8001641/MPs-expenses-case-taken-to-Supreme-Court.html Thanks Ralph. So it's suspended whilst a different issue is under appeal? But surely, the judges ruling would have prevailed for the duration of the trial, appeal comes after? Or are they convicted but still on the loose pending their appeal over the competence of the court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Thanks Ralph. So it's suspended whilst a different issue is under appeal? But surely, the judges ruling would have prevailed for the duration of the trial, appeal comes after? Or were they convicted but still on the loose pending their appeal over the competence of the court? No the fraud charges have not gone to trial yet. The MP's sole defence apart from stupidity was that they are not subject to common law because they were MP's and so had parlimentatry privilidge and could only be judged by thier peers i.e MP's. It is this should they have or not have parlimentary priviledge that is being decided at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Thanks Ralph. So it's suspended whilst a different issue is under appeal? But surely, the judges ruling would have prevailed for the duration of the trial, appeal comes after? Or are they convicted but still on the loose pending their appeal over the competence of the court? Sorry Ralph, catching up here I think. The initial court case was an appeal against the right of the State to prosecute them at all, as opposed to a fraud trial as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 No the fraud charges have not gone to trial yet. The MP's sole defence apart from stupidity was that they are not subject to common law because they were MP's and so had parlimentatry privilidge and could only be judged by thier peers i.e MP's. It is this should they have or not have parlimentary priviledge that is being decided at the moment. Crossed in post. Thanks Ralph, that's very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Me too - but by default. I couldn't find the clubhouse. Aha! I knew it, the tinfoil works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.