Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I remind you, that is precisely what he did not do to form the basis of his judgment of duties and obligations that he ascribed specifically to Johnson's activities and mental state.

Nor did Sumption "read" the common law of public misconduct  of which he accuses Johnson specifically or instructions for producing evidence proving it. Were magistrates and juries to rely and take for example Sumption's conclusory statements of Johnson's guilt, many more would be imprisoned in the UK.

I am unmoved by the either rumored prestige or notoriety of Sumption and Johnson. I am unmoved by MSM reportage purporting "factual analysis" of events which has drifted so far bend the pale of craven entertainments as to be incredible. As is reforming a constitution which is not formed. ## Rule of man.

I look to the merits of applicable public laws to adduce retrospectively the commission of an alleged crime or a civil violation. For this reason I produced a brief syllabus. ## Rule of law.

Which is not to assume either that every statute and trial is desirable in its construction and execution. I understand very well from my observations of and experience with (mostly civil) law enforcement in the US, that proposition is not true. I have frequently alerted readers here over the past years of actual cases, their actual dispositions, and their implications for others.

Here is the latest edition of "scandal" in public office, produced by journalists who admit their only source of "evidence" is one another. On the Mystery of the McCabe Grand Jury. I've read this story with more mundane casts of villainy than "Russiagate". The moral of the tale is, The House Always Wins.

Why? What principle(s) of US Constitution and US Code prevail?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 12:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"I am unmoved by MSM reportage"

Me too. Years spent here deconstructing and criticising (I refuse to use "critiquing") MSM bullshit, bias, cowardice, notably on The Newsroom that I helped to create.

The Sumption quotes are no doubt editorially selected from all he said, but they are at least verbatim, which is why I offered them in place of what you (if I understand rightly?) call "yella sheet opposition".

" Were magistrates and juries to rely and take for example Sumption's conclusory statements of Johnson's guilt,"

Sorry, but you persist in seeing everything through the prism of a trial. There is no trial. No misdeeds have been committed or are alleged. There is no defendant, least of all Johnson in person. "Guilt" is a fantasy.

The opinion expressed is essentially political. What obligations does this law lay on the Prime Minister? Reply: s.he must apply for an extension, and not seek by chicanery to annul or deflect that objective. This is entirely speculative and conditional, it is not intended to inform or guide potential future court decisions, it is in no way a trial verdict or statement of "guilt". It is, however, we may assume, intended to inform the public on a political process. At a time of lies, obfuscation, trolling, covert manipulation, and perversion of institutions and process, it is imo welcome.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 06:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why, yes, there is.

Call the proceedings "hearings" if you prefer. Their results, if not procedures, are the same: recourse to judicial authority to decide remedy for a disputed injury.

Suspect actions of the PM and findings of law adjudicating malfeasance and criminal conduct in his capacity as a public officer are in fact subjects of three bench trials in the UK.

In fact ("skeleton outlines" a/k/a "briefs" of Applicants' pleadings) evidence submitted with political arguments to the courts to prove guilt--the responsibility for specific offense(s) by one or more suspects. Political argument is by definition the matter of laws, processes, things, and people which constitute a "civilization".

Evidence submitted in fact includes but is not limited to affidavits of witnesses and published "media" reporting. Those exhibits number in triple digits, so noted in opinions and judgment of the presiding courts. These collections may or may not include Sumption's public "suggestions" for consideration by the presiding courts to decide the truth of facts adjudicated. Itemization of all exhibits has not been published with opinions and judgment. A court decides evidence admissible or inadmissible, facts true or false according to standards of qualities established and enforced by its jurisdiction.

The UK Supreme Court has scheduled review ("trial") of those "rolled up" complaints, iirc 16 Sep.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 07:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
in Cherry
The redactions purported to have been made on the basis of irrelevance, legal privilege and the Law Officers' advice convention [!]. The petitioners did not know whether these redactions had been properly made. No claim of public interest immunity had been advanced. It was a breach [!] of the right to a fair trial for the respondent [UK "government"] to produce redacted documents.
[...]
The BBC, the Times and the Sun made an application for access to the four documents produced by the respondent, the pleadings and the written arguments for the Lord Advocate and the respondent. This was on the basis of the principle [!] of open justice (Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings [2019] 3 WLR 429 and R (Guardian News and Media v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2013] QB 618). There required to be public scrutiny of the way in which the courts decided cases. The public had to be able to understand why decisions had been taken. It was difficult, if not impossible, to know what was going on without the written material.
The court decided that the respondent need not produce unredacted evidence of the 4 memoranda. Why?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 07:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020.

This is the text under discussion. The PM does not stand accused before any jurisdiction concerning the above, for the evident reason that this obligation is time-dependent: it does not apply before the 19th of October. Before that date, no Prime Minister can possibly contravene. Whatever "hearings" may exist concerning other matters, there are none whatsoever concerning this now-enacted Bill.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 08:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've got you number now.
< wipes tears >

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 08:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are mistaken.

The act--in its particulars including the proposed "exit date" and the PM's duty to submit an extension request to president of the EU Council--passed by parliament is not disputed: You and I agree.

Ironically, pleadings of Applicants claim that the PM's prorogation is unlawful for various reasons. One of these, inexplicably, is that Order of Council for prorogation prevents the PM from submitting a timely extension request to president of the EU Council and prevents parliament sufficient time to "debate" any and all decision(s) by the EU Council on or before 31 October 2019.

Ostensibly the prorogation period ends 14 Oct 2019, the EU Council meets for decisions, 17-18 Oct. EUWA-2-2019 stipulates the form of the request to be submitted by PM and schedule for debate commencing PM receipt of EU Council decision: 2 days later. Regardless of the date of submission, UK parliament response to it ("debate") is limited to the period between 18-31 Oct. Regardless of the prorogation period, UK parliament response to it ("debate") is limited to the period between 18-31 Oct.

UK parliamentary "constitutional" procedures in this matter are predicated on--depend on-- EU Council acceptance of parliament's specified extension period. Did you notice? EUWA-2-2019 does express any formula response to EU Council rejection of the request. Did you notice? EUWA-2-2019 SCHEDULE form letter does not express any report of parliamentary progress or "a way forward" to approval or ratification of the withdrawal agreement prepared by T. May and EU Council and 3x rejected. Did you notice?

To be charitable, it is difficult to make sense from a string of non sequiturs purported by a PM to represent simultaneously either "no deal" or a deal or an agreement with either the EU Council or parliament.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Sep 16th, 2019 at 05:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series