Lord Chief Justice must act to stop treason by Legal Advisers

Delegated powers are being abused by court staff to habitually tip the scales of justice in favour of government

Previous Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Malden has been called upon by the Asymmetric Lawfare Institute to investigate abuses of court rules that are being abused to deny justice to thousands of defendants.

In the letter reproduced below, Lord Burnett is urged to look into how the due process of law is being circumvented by corrupt legal advisers in the magistrates courts who have seized power from judges in what has been described as a ‘legal coup’ and even treason.

In 2020 the then Lord Chief Justice delegated certain administrative powers to the court legal advisors in the interests of time saving and efficiency, but these rules have been reinterpreted by a fifth column of government shills that have been embedded in the courts. Instead of a member of the judiciary executing their judicial mind under the separation of powers in the English Constitution, legal advisors have took it upon themselves to just rubber stamp summons applications from government departments without any scrutiny which circumvents the checks and balances supposedly enshrined in our constitution for the protection of the people, which it is argued is in effect the subversion of the rule of law and hence tantamount to treason.

Governments shills acting as gatekeepers of justice

In some instances the new ‘priest class’ of Legal Advisers have become the ‘gatekeepers of justice’ and have dispensed with judges altogether and directly interpret the law themselves in order to deny defendants the right to a fair trial and challenge the government gravy train.

One recent example of this has been corrupt Thames Valley Legal Adviser Sue Walton who has been accused of discriminating against defendants on religious grounds by refusing to accept a Statutory Declaration from a defendant on the basis that she claimed it could not be used for civil matters despite Quakers such as William Penn fighting for these rights in his famous Penn & Meads trial.

By these methods highly paid government shills on fat pensions such as the odious Walton are able to prevent defendants challenging the star chamber magistrates’ courts which have simply degenerated into a revenue collection service for the government which has now abandoned any pretence of being a proper court of law.

In a recent signed statement, dumb-as-a-rock Walton suffered another now famous ’lapse of lucidity’ when she admitted to being part of a corrupt cartel which conspired to fix inflated court costs in the courts that she oversaw by a secret arrangement between corrupt magistrates and council bosses which bilked vulnerable defendants for £1M a year. ‘Crooked Sue Walton’ now faces a pending investigation in the High Court for her role in this fraud.

Will no one rid us of these meddlesome priests?

Dear Lord Burnett of Maldon,

We hope that you will grasp the seriousness of the situation and of the unintended consequences of your previous actions when you were the Lord Chief Justice whereby you enacted various letters of authority to authorise court staff to perform various legal functions on behalf of the court by the delegation of powers to the legal advisors, reproduced below:

“ Authorisation of court staff to exercise judicial functions and Delegation of Authorisation No.3 This replaces "Authorisation of court staff to exercise judicial functions and Delegation of Authorisation No.2" The Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Staff) Act 2018 provides powers to authorise court staff to provide legal advice to judges of the family court and justices of the peace and to exercise judicial functions where procedure rules so provide. {1) Authorisation of Court Staff I confirm that, as of 16th December 2020 any court officer who was authorised to exercise functions of the court under Parts 2, 51, of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions 2E, 51R, and 51T on 5 April 2020 continues to be authorised to exercise those functions and the functions of a legal adviser under Part 73 (formerly Practice Direction 51T). This authorisation is made under s.678(2) of the Courts Act 2003. (2) Delegation of Functions I delegate my functions to authorise court officers to exercise functions of the court under Parts 2, 51, and 73 of the Civil Procedure Rules to the Designated Civil Judges for Northampton and Leicester Trial Centre in respect of the County Court Business Centre, and Greater Manchester in respect of the County Court Money Claims Centre, or their respective nominees. The delegation to the Master of the Rolls concerning authorisations in respect of the Civil Procedure Rules, dated 31 March 2020 is varied accordingly. This delegation is made under s.678(5) of the Courts Act 2003. It takes effect as of 16th December 2020. It is made to the individual who holds the office specified and automatically transfers to their successors-in-title to the office. Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ 16th December 2020”

They were presumably intended as procedure and practice but these are being habitually abused as a backdoor route to usurp the judiciary and cause inequity by allowing unsworn ‘legal advisers’ in magistrates’ courts to habitually grant summonses in favour of government entities which has tipped the scales of justice against the people that the judiciary are bound to serve. Most public interaction with the law is via magistrates’ courts and therefore this is a matter with significant standing.

It has recently been called into question as to whether and how a member of court staff who is not a judicial officer and has not sworn a judicial oath could lawfully make a judicial decision such as granting a summons in the magistrates’ court when they are unable to engage their judicial mind because in law they plainly do not have one and this sets up a conflict with Section 51 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 which specifically reserves such power to the judiciary.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/part/II/crossheading/jurisdiction-to-issue-summons-and-deal-with-complaints/enacted

This has significantly tipped the balance of power and led to abuses of due process ,rubber-stamping of summonses by court staff and other abuses which must be stopped immediately.

We believe this delegation of powers to the legal advisors that you authorised that is being used in this way is ultra vires, as it breaches the constitutional separation of powers as it subverts the rule of law by an independent judiciary that you represented who are under oath to law and the crown.

This biased interpretation of your instructions is being used to bestow judicial powers and responsibility to biased government employees, which is in effect subverting the rule of law and promoting government tyranny and it is a soft coup by government, and therefore tantamount to treason by subverting the rule of law that our Monarch swore to uphold in their oath to the people.

How can the King dispense mercy in his judgements when his independent judiciary have been usurped by government shills ?

The usurpation of the judiciary is regularly justified by HMCTS Legal Advisors in the following fashion: “I believe these provisions have to be considered in conjunction with the Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020. The introductory text to the rules states that “The Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, makes the following rules in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 144 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and section 67B(1) of the Courts Act 2003, having taken the steps required by section 67C of the Courts Act 2003. These rules came into force on 6th April 2020. Rule 2 states that, subject to rule 3, the functions in the schedule may be exercised by an authorised court officer in any proceedings in a Magistrates’ Court except in relation to a criminal cause or matter. Section 1(D) of the schedule to the rules states ‘An authorised court officer may issue a summons at the request of a local authority.’

So are they properly ‘authorised’ in law, or are such actions of granting summonses ultra vires because the secondary legislation conflicts with the intent of the primary legislation and judicial independence under their oath?

We call upon you to provide clarity to your instructions in the interest of justice.

The primary legislation is Section 144 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 which originally states that ‘the Lord Chief Justice may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make rules for regulating and prescribing, except in relation to any criminal cause or matter, the procedure and practice ( notably not judicial function ) to be followed (a) In Magistrates’ Courts and (b) By designated officers for Magistrates’ Courts.’

We are not satisfied that the secondary legislation ( Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 ) accords with the intent of the primary legislation or nor does it have any scope to provide authority for an ‘authorised’ court officer to issue a summons, as they have no ‘judicial mind’ to consider it, and that this matter was never considered or even debated by the House of Commons as it was passed by the backdoor negative procedure.

A Justice of the Peace should be the only person to have the power to issue such a summons as they have sworn their oath to Law and the Crown and to do otherwise is repugnant to the rule of law and the rights of the people as it circumvents the separation of powers by substituting a judicial officer with a biased government employee.

We watched the fascinating series of interviews by Frances Gibb on YouTube with yourself and other Supreme Court justices whereby many of you ( most notably Baroness Hale ) called out these Henry the Eighth clauses and the use of secondary legislation by government to circumvent the due process of law, and therefore there is already considerable concern regarding this problem and I trust my complaint here demonstrates to you in practice how this works against the public interest.

By allowing this perversion of your instructions to persist you are giving tacit agreement to the usurpation of the judiciary and hence this matter requires your urgent attention as a member of Parliament is unlikely to intervene to reduce the excessive powers of their government.