Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Laughing Gnome

Lest We Forget

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.