Legal Manoeuvres

Civilisation exists because laws protect one individual or a group of individuals from the actions of others.

Laws and regulations are discussed at great length and they are carefully worded so that any loopholes which could be utilised by those amongst us who do not wish to honour the rights of our fellow citizens are hopefully closed.
Despite this it is clear that a profession has evolved to help those with ill intent flout the very laws created to ensure our safety.

The Organophosphate Insecticide actions around the world illustrate this problem perfectly.

An industry has developed which rides rough-shod over the victims of poisoning. It matters not a jot if the victim is poisoned by pesticides, radiation, solvents, drugs or dies from asbestos or other forms of environmentally triggered cancer.

There is big money to be made.

Consider OP poisoning cases in the UK.
Currently the rules laid down by Government, which is also a defendant in some cases, have decreed that all the cases should be under an umbrella action and that a single firm is responsible for proceeding the cases. those cases range from simple employer negligence cases to far more costly and involved cases against the might of the chemical companies.
Each case will involve different circumstances and different chemical formulations but it suits the purpose of Government to have them heard as one and the suggested reason for this can only be that it is easier to defeat such actions.

The UK Government is perhaps unique in the world as it has control over the licensing of the chemicals, monitoring of residues, diagnosis and treatment of the victims (via the National Health Service), control over the committees which should recognise side effects and control over the law and the national statistics which should indicate any rising problems in public health.
Government also allocates research funds and it is clear that they only allow research in areas which suit their purpose.

The COT Committee, again part of Government, was asked to examine the evidence of OP poisoning and many victims gave evidence.
That evidence was ignored and, despite the admission that OPs can have serious toxic effects other than those on the nervous system, they claimed not to have the scientific knowledge to include them in their report.

This from a Government which has for years studied the effects of OP nerve gas on man and warned of OP pesticide dangers in 1951.

In fact some of those on the committee appear to have been directly linked to that work and the Committee itself is responsible for controlling and setting the safe levels of additives in food.
OP insecticides are deliberately added to harvested grain as undeclared food additives so in effect they therefore sat in judgement of themselves and found no reason for concern.
A well respected expert in the field of OP toxicity has been reported as declaring genuine shock and horror that the oldest, and some say most respected, Parliamentary Democracy in the world presides over such a corrupt system.

The law also controls the Benefits System in the UK and this is headed by the same High Court Division as currently controls the OP litigation.

Victims of poisoning are often too ill to work. many are confined to their homes and some depend on wheelchairs.
Many victims can tell of the corrupt practices used by the Benefits Agency in their efforts to deny these genuine claimants their rightful benefits.
These issues have been reported to both the Courts and the Government but the practice continues unabated.

The Legal Aid Board was part of the Benefits Agency. It has since been renamed as the Legal Services Commission at great expense to the tax payers of the UK. Name changes are expensive.

The Government makes every effort to reduce the monies paid out by the Commission and has introduced new rules in order to restrict the number of publicly funded cases taking up Court time and Aid funds.
This also helps them with excuses to stop embarrassing cases such as the OP litigation and reports suggest that solicitors were instructed to "lose" some 500 OP cases this year alone.

In short the defendants in the cases control the game.

One case may be of some interest.

A firm of lawyers attempted to throw out the proven negligence case by giving false evidence to the Legal Aid Board. It was discovered that the lawyer concerned had close contact with the Government Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, who had cause to hide their own failings and those of their contacts in the Government run National Health Service.

A second firm of lawyers were said to be horrified by the unlawful actions of the first firm on what was an obviously strong case.
Before too long attitudes changed and they too produced a multi-page document full of grossly misleading information and the Legal Aid Certificate was withdrawn.
The victim fought to get the Certificate reinstated with negotiations which lasted over a year.

False information intentionally inserted into case notes is notoriously difficult to remove.

The efforts were successful but the lawyer involved moved to another firm taking the case and others with him. This firm was headed by the then Vice-chairman of the Legal Aid Board who also has close contacts within Government. He parted company with the lawyer and his firm then had control of all the OP cases.

The defendants produced documents containing false statements.

Before long this firm also produced a document complete with deliberately misleading information and this too resulted in the revoking of the certificate.
Once again the victim provided supporting evidence and wrote to the Court suggesting that all parties involved were in contempt.

The certificate was reinstated.

All the legal firms involved had been requested to obtain medical records from the Government's National Health Service but despite the law which states that such things should be freely available to the patient release was refused.
This too has been reported to Government regulators but no action has been taken.

The lawyers claimed to have obtained the full medical records from the Government's Poisons Unit but despite those claims they returned to the victim only the papers which he had extracted by his own efforts from the Government's National Health Service Hospital.
This too was reported to the regulators but no action was taken.

The victim had information that deadlines had been imposed by the High Court for supporting medical evidence to be introduced. The lawyers claimed that the deadline had been postponed and attempted to force travel to "independent" specialists for new reports.
Those "independent" experts were discovered to have links with the defendants and the Hospitals linked directly with the Poisons Unit which had hidden evidence about the case.
The victim wrote directly to the Court again but within days false claims were made that the contributions demanded from the victim's means-tested benefits were in arrears and as a result the certificate would be withdrawn yet again.
Eventually the mistake was admitted but not before the victim had incurred more unnecessary costs.

The UK Government brought in new rules for Court procedures in attempts to speed up the process of law. It made special reference to "Expert opinion" and stated that the expert's duty was to the Court.
They must "help the court on matters within their expertise, bearing in mind that this duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom they have received instructions or by whom they are paid."
It also states that experts must make a declaration that they understand and have complied with their duty to the Court.
The expert's opinion forms a statement and there is a section devoted to statements which demands that statements of case, witness statements and expert reports must be accompanied by a "statement of truth".
"Any document with a signed statement of truth which contains false information given deliberately; that is, without honest belief in its truth, will constitute a contempt of Court by the person who provided the information."

Despite this it is clear that experts are withholding vital information on formulation of pesticides, adverse health effects of pesticides and the medical records which show that individuals are suffering from proven health problems known to be caused by pesticides.

Yet we never see expert witnesses who have given false evidence against a victim charged with Contempt of Court or perjury.

Such is the state of the Legal System which is self-promoted as one of the best in the world.

The power of the multi-nationals is such that they can control the law of Sovereign States.
Their influence over our lives is guaranteed and it is impossible to break free.
In 1997 the UK elected a new Government which claimed to be free of the sleaze which dogged the ruling party which preceded them.
The election campaign of the new order was funded in part by the multi-nationals.
The Prime Minister's office itself was sent evidence that the safety data for commonly used pesticides is seriously flawed but they claim to have "lost" the evidence.
When it was resubmitted through Parliament itself they again took no action.

Many of those now in Government have been trained as lawyers.

We must not assume that this scenario is limited to the UK system of law and of Government.
A well documented case in the United States of America where "Freedom of Information" rights are written into the constitution demonstrates that the power of the multi-nationals over the law is a world-wide problem.
That case resulted from the pest control activity of a specialist company
The OP used resulted in the ill-health of the victims who were unable to sustain their employment.
They began a case for compensation but financial difficulties drove them out of their home and into bankruptcy.

The law then allowed the firm which was involved with the pest control operation to purchase the case because it had an asset value within the terms of the bankruptcy regulations.
Another case was lost to the power of might over right.

We must examine the role played by the Insurers in all this.
Everyone needs insurance - except for the desperately poor who have nothing of value - everyone from farmers to the Multi-nationals has need to insure against the unexpected.
The greater the risk the greater the premium and it is interesting to note that the Insurers refused to cover the multi-nationals for possible damage caused by GM crops in the environment.
Even in the smallest road traffic accident the insurers impress on their clients the need to deny liability even if they know they are responsible. This is part of their effort to reduce the payments to the injured in order to maximise the profits of their business.
If we examine the poisoning cases we will see that the farmer must deny responsibility if he wishes the insurers to cover the cost.
The Doctors require insurance in order to practice and they too dare not risk losing their cover.
The lawyers require insurance in case they make serious mistakes which leave them liable for losses and they too need to help their protectors.
The Insurers employ big time lawyers who have formidable power.

Now we see legal action being used to control countries outside of the boundaries of the powerful "Democratic" nations under the banner of "Free Trade" laws. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Independent Nations to control the quality of their food supply. "Free Trade" and the laws which support it are endangering entire Nations and their citizens have no power left to protect themselves.

Such is the power of the law.

Recommended reading - "The Most Corrupt British Judges" by Dr A. Adoko.
Published by London Truth Publishers ISBN 1 871694 05 1

The late, great, Judge Lord Denning is reported to have said that
"Most lawyers know, roughly speaking, what 'Misprision of felony' means.
It means that a man knows that a felony has been committed and neglects to disclose it...."
To do so is an offence in law. " has been the duty of a man, who knows that a felony has been committed to report it to the proper authority.....
...a public body "must not misuse its powers; and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen when there is no overriding public interest to warrant it."

Dated 16/9/2000    Updated 22/9/2001

Go to top

  Return to Front Page;   Return to Contents file