… a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest… If it was dishonest… then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2
Many people believe that the courts are there to protect us, a final safety net to step in and save us if the police and crown prosecution service get out of control. But nothing could be further from the truth. The court system in the United Kingdom is just as corrupt and self-serving as any other component of the justice industry. This situation has played out in the Civil Courts, Administrative Courts, Criminal Courts, and Ecclesiastical Courts. I have thus seen a large sample of the behavior exhibited by the court system. As an illustration I will select one item that was stolen from my home, and follow the progress of that case.
I owned a Bang and Olufsen Television Set. It was left to me by my father in his Will. It had great emotional attachment for me. It was my property; I had clear legal title to it. This television set was stolen by Mr. Brian Allan, one of the thugs that invaded my home. He took it back to his house in Lowestoft.
My first step was to go to the thief's house and demand that he return my TV set. I could clearly see my TV set in the front room of the offender's home. He refused to return my TV set and threatened me with his German Shepherd dog.
My next step was to go to the Lowestoft Police station and file a criminal complaint about the theft of my TV set. The police officer that took my report said that she would immediately go to the offender's home and arrest him. Shortly thereafter that police officer left me a voice mail. She said that she had spoken to the thief, that he was a “nice guy”, and that I could have my television set back. All I needed to do was to call that police officer and she would arrange the return of my TV set. I returned the police officer's call within 20 minutes. Her demeanor had changed completely: She was hostile and obstructive. She told me that the offender “was not a thief”. She said that she knew this because of her many years experience as a police officer. She said that I could not have my property back, and that if I didn't like that I could file a civil law suit to recover my property. She refused to arrest the offender. Shortly thereafter I received a threatening voice mail from a male police officer, a PC Brown. He said that if I contacted the thief again I would be arrested. What happened in that intervening 20 minutes? Who did the “Gang of Twenty” call to get such a dramatic shift in police behaviour?
Next I issued proceedings in Lowestoft County Court against Mr. Brian Allan, the thief that had stolen my TV set. He claimed that he had been given my TV set by another member of the “Gang of Twenty”, Mrs. Helen Hermione Pike. This was not a valid defence because Mrs. Pike had no lawful authority to steal my TV set. If she had given my TV set to Brian Allan she would also be guilty of handling stolen goods. Brian Allan was well aware that Mrs. Pike did not have lawful authority to give away my possessions. Brian Allan was also well aware that I did not consent to his taking my TV set. The fact that I was suing him over the TV set clearly demonstrated that I did not consent to his taking my TV set. Also Brian Allan had previously made complaints to the police alleging that I had damaged his car and house in retaliation for his taking of my possessions from my home. The allegations are sufficient evidence that he knew he was not permitted to enter my home and take my possessions. I asked Mrs. Pike if she had given my TV set to Brian Allan, and she denied it. A month later I asked her again, this time making it clear to her that I was recording her response for use as evidence in a court of law. Once again she denied giving my TV set to the thief. After another month had elapsed I told her that I was suing her accomplice, Brian Allan. This time she admitted giving my TV set to Brian Allan. She made this admission in an attempt to protect her accomplice. Thus I issued court proceedings against her too.
At trial audio recordings of all three of these conversations with Mrs. Pike were introduced as evidence. The presiding judge, District Judge Birchall, criticized this evidence, specifically “the manner in which it was obtained”. The recordings were all made in compliance with all relevant laws. Mrs. Pike was informed at the beginning of the conversation that it was being recorded even though there was no legal duty to warn her. Mrs. Pike had previously sworn an executor's oath in order to obtain a grant of probate. That oath placed upon her a duty of candor to all co-executors and beneficiaries. I am both a co-executor and a beneficiary. Thus when she lied to me she committed perjury. She also committed the following crimes contrary to the The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35):
When faced with the audio recordings of the three conversations in which her voice was clearly recognizable, three conversations in which she lied to me, Mrs. Pike admitted that she “had been less than forthcoming”. She claimed that it was necessary to lie to me because of her “well founded belief” that if I knew she was giving my TV set to Brian Allan I would object. She cited my attempts to recover my TV set as proof that her lies were necessary. District Judge Birchall agreed with her that she was justified in lying to me, a co-executor, beneficiary of the estate and rightful owner of the TV set. For avoidance of doubt: District Judge Birchall said that it is acceptable for a thief to lie to the rightful owner of property, even under oath, to conceal the theft of that property. District Judge Birchall openly supported perjury.
What is the evidence to support this accusation?
What is the definition of dishonesty? In the United Kingdom it is usually defined by the “Ghosh Test”. This stems from a precedent setting case: R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2. It is a two stage test: The first stage of the test is “whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest”. So, dear reader, if you are a reasonable and honest person, do you consider it dishonest for an offender to enter a person's home after that homeowner has told the offender not to enter their home? Do you consider it dishonest to take that homeowner's possessions after the homeowner has told the offender not to touch their possessions? Do you consider it dishonest for an offender to retain the stolen possessions for themselves? Do you consider it dishonest for an offender to sell the possessions and retain the proceeds for themselves, with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their possessions? In your personal opinion are these actions dishonest? Now we move on to the second stage of the test: “consider whether the defendant himself must have realized that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest”. We already have an answer to this second stage: The offenders lied to conceal their theft. If they had any good faith belief that their behavior was acceptable then they would have openly admitted what they had done. The defendants stated in court that they lied to me, the rightful owner of the property, because they knew I would object to their taking of my property. They said that they believed that I would harass the thieves if they told me they had taken my possessions. They stated that that was an acceptable and lawful reason for them to lie to conceal their actions. I assert that lying to me to conceal their actions is rigorous evidence that they knew their actions were dishonest.
So, why did District Judge Birchall agree with the offenders and rule that they were quite correct to lie to conceal their thefts? Why did District Judge Birchall rule that it is acceptable for a proving executor, having sworn an executor's oath, to willfully lie to a co-executor, and to wilfully lie to a beneficiary of the estate that they are sworn to protect, in order for that executor to conceal their thefts from the estate? Why did District Judge Birchall rule that it is acceptable for a proving executor to lie to conceal their actions from a co-executor, and to conceal their actions from a beneficiary of the estate?
Is District Judge Birchall dishonest? Does District Judge Birchall have any bona fide belief in the righteousness of his perverse ruling? Or, is District Judge Birchall protecting the local elite, his home boys, the largest law firm in town that sends him lots of business, his fellow lawyers?
John Michael Loftus, the partner in Norton Peskett that wrote my father's Will, agreed with me that an executor, and especially a proving executor, has a Duty of Candor to all other executors of the estate, and a Duty of Candor to the beneficiaries of the estate. John Loftus claims to be a specialist in Probate Law, and thus his statement can be regarded as an expert opinion. John Loftus explicitly criticized District Judge Birchall's ruling in this case. John Loftus said that District Judge Birchall clearly did not understand inheritance and probate law. An audio recording of my conversation with John Loftus is available as evidence of his statements. In my opinion District Judge Birchall does not understand the law of simple theft, or the Fraud statutes. I am also shocked that a District Judge supports perjury in his courtroom by condoning the lying of the defendants.
So, whereas the Lowestoft Police consider that it is a crime to publish the truth, the Lowestoft County Court considers that it is entirely acceptable to tell lies, even in violation of an oath.
What is the point of working hard all one's life to earn money to buy possessions and build a home if the law does not recognize the right to own property? If anyone who covets one's possessions can just take those possessions with impunity then what does it mean to own anything? If one cannot give ones's possessions to others during one's lifetime, or at the time of one's death, then what is the meaning of having “legal title” to that property? If you see something you like in a shop why work hard to earn money, go into the shop, purchase that item, and take it to your home where you can be assured that it is safe? Why not just walk into the shop and help yourself to whatever shinny object you take a fancy to, and not pay for it? And if someone else sees it in your possession and wants it then why not just accept that they can take it from you? That is how the world would function if there was no such thing as property rights. But then why would anyone operate a shop, pay the salaries of the manager and shop assistants, pay for light and heat, if there was no profit to be made because the customers just helped themselves to whatever they wanted without paying. Why would any company design, manufacture and distribute goods to the shops? Without property rights the economy would collapse instantly. Without property rights no new technology would be developed. Without property rights we would all be hunter gatherers and live in cold dark caves.
So, do we have property rights in the United Kingdom? Well, in most of the United Kingdom, every part except Lowestoft, we do. In most of the United Kingdom it is a criminal offence to take another person's property without consent and with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of that property. In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Property Rights are also considered a fundamental human right. The European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, Protocol 1 Article 1, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, Article 17, guarantee this right.
So, do we have property rights in Lowestoft? Does this small subset of the United Kingdom, situated at the extreme easternmost point of the UK, have the same laws protecting our rights to own property as are enjoyed everywhere else in the United Kingdom? Well, de facto, no it does not. On paper it may appear that the laws in Lowestoft match those in the rest of the country. But in practice the written law is of no relevance whatsoever in this outpost of the Twilight Zone. The Lowestoft Police and the Lowestoft Courts have chosen to enforce their own insane perversion of the law. The Lowestoft Police allow thieves, armed robbers, violent sadists, to enter the homes of peaceful hard working people and take any property they want. The rightful owner of that property has no right to stop their most cherished possessions being forcibly taken from them. Indeed, if the rightful owner of that property even raises a non violent written objection to having their lawfully possessed property forcibly taken from them then they will be sent to prison without trial. Likewise if a resident of Lowestoft writes a Will clearly identifying the beneficiaries to whom they wish to leave their possessions upon their death, then the executors of their estate can ignore the Will and do whatever they want with the estate assets. Any Will executed in Lowestoft, no matter what the testator's intent, will leave all the deceased's possessions to the executors, and not to the intended beneficiaries. Why even bother to write a Will? You will get the same result if you just throw all your possessions out in the street with a sign that reads “help yourself”!
I welcome any feedback on this website. Just click on the feedback icon below to send your message.
Feedback