Open letter by Monckton of Brenchley
Paul Bridgland, Departmental Records Officer paul.bridgland@supremecourt.uk
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square, London
SW1P 3DB 16 October 2015
Sir,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Supreme Court pantomime of hate on climate change, 17-19 September 2015
This is a request in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in connection with the partisan political rally on climate change that is said to have been held in various courtrooms including Nos. 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court of England and Wales at Parliament Square, London, from 17-19 September 2015, with the active participation of at least one of the Supreme Court’s justices and the presumed approval or at least consent of the Supreme Court as a whole. This event was drawn to my attention by various persons profoundly concerned that, on a matter of current public and political controversy, the Supreme Court should have seen fit to take sides openly, in flagrant offence against both of the principles of natural justice recognized in the laws of England and Wales, and also in contravention of the obligation of strict neutrality on matters of current political contention that is a self-evident sine qua non for the Supreme Court and anyone purporting to serve as one of its Justices.
However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. This request is intended to discover whether – per impossibile – the Supreme Court’s pantomime of hate indeed took place and, if so, at whose instigation and at what cost, and who was approached for funding, and who agreed to fund the event, and how much was paid and by whom, and how much was spent, and by whom, and on whom or on what, and whether the passages of overtly and nakedly partisan political hate-speech attributed to one of the justices and to an invited lecturer were in fact uttered by them.
Judicial review of the administrative decisions of various departments of government, including the Supreme Court of England and Wales and certain of its personnel and justices, to stage, condone, fund or participate in this repugnant and unlawful event is in active contemplation. Questions about whether the Supreme Court should have allowed its Justices to turn it into a Christmas pantomime theatre, or whether the Court can now legitimately hear any case touching upon climate or the environment without falling foul of both principles of natural justice (on the evils of manifest judicial prejudice and of refusal to hear both sides of a case, videte Denning MR in, respectively, Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. V. Lannon [1968] EWCA Civ 5 [1969] 1QB 577 and in Kanda v. The Federation of Malaya [1962] AC 322 at 327), will be directed to the relevant departments and personnel in due course. First, however, it is necessary to ascertain the facts.
None of the questions to which replies are now sought is a question concerning the details of any case that has been or is before the Supreme Court. Nor do any of the numerous other exemptions and get-out clauses at sections 35-36 of the FOI Act apply. Therefore, any refusal on the part of the Court to provide any or all of the requested information may be referred to the Information Commissioner for determination, or may form part of the eventual judicial review of the administrative decisions of the Court or of other departments or agencies of government in respect of this partisan political rally held at the Court. I am making this letter public.
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
1. Please state whether the Supreme Court in fact held a conference at its premises in Parliament Square, London, or at any other place, during September 2015, under the title Climate Change & the Rule of Law or under any suchlike title or with any suchlike theme; and, if so, between what dates and at what places any such conference was held.
2. Please confirm that the web page at https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html and all web pages dependent thereupon are official web pages of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and that the content of the web pages is official content approved by the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and explain in what fashion and by whom the decision was taken to place and populate the said web pages and otherwise to publicize the event, and under whose ultimate control the web pages are managed.
3. In particular, please confirm that the video of part of the Supreme Court’s propaganda event at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI is a complete and accurate record of the segment of the event that it purports to cover.
4. Please supply copies or, where copies are unavailable, records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with the climate-change conference alleged to have taken place at the Supreme Court in September 2015. In particular, but without limitation, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.
5. Please supply a complete list of all participants in the conference, indicating all who spoke, with all records of their remarks and all transcripts of the proceedings.
6. Please supply copies of all agendas, working papers and other documentation of whatever kind produced by or sent, given, transmitted or otherwise made available to or by any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.
7. Please state at whose initiative the conference was staged, and supply all relevant correspondence or records of conversations concerning the proposal to stage the conference.
8. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who participated in the decision to stage the conference, and state on what date and in what manner the decision was reached, and provide the names of all parties who were consulted by the Supreme Court or any of its servants or agents before the decision was reached, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in relation to the consultations leading to the decision, and to the decision itself.
9. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who disagreed with the decision to stage the conference, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in which they declared or indicated their concerns.
10. Please provide a list of all departments or other entities or persons who were approached with requests for funding, and supply the names of those who made the funding requests and of those to whom the requests were made, together with copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with funding the conference between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.
11. Please provide full and complete accounts for the conference, including without limitation the sources, amounts and dates of all tranches of funding for the conference, a full account of all income and expenditure, a full list of all honoraria, expenses or other sums paid to participants or others attending or present at the conference, and copies of all correspondence or conversations concerning any financial aspect of the conference.
12. Please state whether a person named as “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court.
13. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference, and please provide all documentation to, from or concerning him or any agent or servant of his in connection with any aspect of the conference.
14. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state the annual remuneration, pension, expenses and other sums or emoluments paid to “Lord Carnwath” out of public funds in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 a) in respect of his function as a Justice of the Supreme Court; and b) in respect of any other matters, such other matters to be specified and the amounts quantified.
15. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 between him and the United Nations Environment Program that have been or are filed at the Supreme Court, together with accounts of all honoraria, expenses or other emoluments or remuneration whatever paid to or received by “Lord Carnwath” or any of his servants or agents by the United Nations Environment Program or any of its servants or agents.
16. Please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “President Obama has said we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. On that basis, the forthcoming Paris negotiations under the UN Climate Change Convention are a crucial test of our ability as a global community to address those challenges. The intention is that the commitments which emerge from those negotiations should have legal force.”
17. Please state whether “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “The International Court of Justice or International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea could be asked, for example, to confirm (as a scientific matter) that emissions reductions are needed – nationally and globally – to stay below the globally agreed temperature threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. As I noted at the outset, there is a broad emerging consensus on many of these factual matters, but they remain subject to challenge in some quarters, including by scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals, and the courts could play a role here in finally scotching those claims.”
18. If “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference, please state whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “The court has a potentially significant role to play in helping the world understand and decide on the science of climate change and to recognize that the room for real doubt has disappeared.”
19. Please state whether any Justice or official or servant or agent of the Supreme Court has demurred at remarks such as those of “Lord Carnwath” or “Philippe Sands QC” and provide any record or copy of any such demurrer.
20. Please provide a complete list of all cases concerning climate, the environment or other matters connected in any way with the subject-matter of the conference that are currently before the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and state what, if any, provisions of law or administrative procedure exist to provide an alternative court of final appeal on matters, such as climate and environment, on which the Supreme Court, both collectively and in the person of one of its Justices, has acted blatantly and bizarrely in such a fashion as to indicate an open and malicious political prejudice and is accordingly parti pris.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m glad he’s on our side.
As they say in the UK, “Here Here”…..
Actually, we say “Hear, hear”…
There, there.
Now, now
And that’s that.
Well well.
Uh, oh!
UK Supreme court says “Heil, Heil”
Where! Where!
They should know not to discount a Viscount… did I say that right?
Pooh pooh.
Yeah, yeah …
Tut tut
Snicker, snicker &
cluck cluck…
Oy Yoy
I was in the WC.
Did I miss anything ?
No – just a flash in the pan.
Oh my!
I need context. re the 2000 event.
I read what is there, but I am missing something. I think?
The event was in Sept 2015..The FOIA act is 2000
See the video above !!
ok I didn’t watch the video… watching…
Well, That was a miserable 80 odd minutes.
Wow, quite an accusation. But, as usual, will anything come out of it, or will it drown in bureaucracy?
Does that question even need asking?
I understand your point. A lot of these climate investigations / whitewash / coverups seem to have no effect but they do. They are being publicly asked to answer questions and may have to go to the trouble of “fixing” investigations. It brings to the money sucking vampires the thing they fear the most, daylight.
“will anything come out of it”
No. His Lordship has requested too much information. The cost will be prohibitive and no-one will be prepared to pay. The trick seems to be to ask for what you need and no more then they can’t play the: “OK, but give me a million pounds first and wait 5 years” card.
Any costs for gathering information to reply to an FOI request must be reasonable and justifiable. The same goes for the time frame. Some information may already be published in which case they don’t need to provide. And the information requested has to exist. I was on the edge of a case where the requestor would not be convinced that the information requested simply did not exist. It could have been created but that is not how it works, and the requestor had sufficient data to do that himself.
In response to graphicconception, I have not requested “too much information”: I have requested the information I shall need in order to determine whether the “Supreme” Court has, as I now think it has, acted unlawfully and in a fashion that is properly judicially reviewable. If the Court tries to use one of the usual get-outs – namely that answering these questions would cost more than some sum or another – then the questions will no doubt be put to it by several different citizens each asking one or two questions. It will then have to reply to everyone, or to think of a different excuse to conceal the shady dealings in which it appears to have improperly involved itself.
That was an immensely boring youtube video.
Did you notice, Pamela, that the speaker, the Honorable Philippe Sands, implicitly denied the right of a state to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons to prevent impending (aggressive) obliteration by a second country?
He specifically said that obliterating others when you yourself face obliteration (at their hands) is unlawful. I.e., it is unlawful to kill in self-defense against a murderous attack.
He also sides with the Palestinians in their front line role, in the never ending war to obliterate Israel. So, it seems that obliteration of a people is OK with the Honorable Phillipe Sands, so long as it’s non-nuclear obliteration of a people he doesn’t like.
That’s not boring. It’s also fair warning.
Philippe Sands, as a sitting judge, denies the right of self-defense and supports a religiously motivated genocidal war.
He’s a highly intelligent idiot with legal powers over others. He speaks monstrosities with complete confidence and wants the International Court of Justice to have the power to adjudicate his views.
“He’s a highly intelligent idiot …”. No he is a clever, even a very clever, idiot but he is not intelligent, let alone “highly intelligent”.
Insanity doesn’t require stupidity, Solomon. It merely requires adamant adherence to a wildly unrealistic outlook. Intelligence can well work in service to foolish and unexamined motivations.
It seems pretty clear that Philippe Sands has worked himself into exactly that: a wildly unrealistic outlook. He’s rationalizing a moralizing totalitarian superstate. With intelligence, high purpose, and a clear conscience. He’s not sane.
Well said. I marvel(and shudder) at the ability of psychotics to hold untenable positions with such unflappable confidence the positions seem reasonable to a good portion of society.
‘Philippe Sands, as a sitting judge’
‘About the speakers:
Philippe Sands QC is a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London’
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/newsevents/eventrecords/ClimateChangeandtheRuleofLawAdjudicatingtheFutureofInternationalLaw.aspx
First there was “Global Warming” now it is “Climate Change” next the” go to jail card ” ?
He’s a highly intelligent idiot with legal powers over others……
No the system of legal training in the UK gives us not particularly intelligent but expensively over educated mediocre people as you need a cartload of money to do all the dining out at the inns of court.
Philippe Sands also sees the threat of “climate change” as so pervasive and so powerful as to transcend national sovereignty and to dissolve it. He takes the IPCC declarations of human causality and clear impeding disaster at full face value. The self-interest of free societies can not be allowed to delay action. He declares free societies to be merely “territorially defined areas over which states are said to have sovereignty.”
US, UK, Australia? Not countries, just opinions. So says Philippe Sands. Opinions that must be set aside in favor of a supervening authority that can address the gigantic problem of “climate change.”
These declarations are his superhighway to aggregation and assertion of power over states and peoples.
He says that climate change arises from “every aspect of human activity“– meaning its critical amelioration requires power to regulate every aspect of human activity.
If there was ever a recipe and road map to utter totalitarianism, Philippe Sands has outlined it in his speech. And he desires it. I’m sure he’s never felt so motivated or so positive, what with righteousness so sweet and the promise of power so tantalizingly and close.
I doubt he could dispassionately assess the IPCC’s declarations even if the means were spoon-fed to him. Accepting the IPCC at face value is just too seductive a dish for him.
The guy’s not just an idiot. He’s a dangerous idiot; advising in carefully chosen words and with plummy accents crimes against humanity to an assembly of approving co-conspirators.
Still boring. I wanted to hit the fast forward button just to be able to overcome the slow pedantic pace of the speakers. It was a ridiculous speech, rambling here and there, followed by an even slower powder head who was asked to comment. Yes it was filled with unschooled spin on climate and had the same meant ending as a more graphic video: blow humans up. But instead of a button under the desk, they damn near did it to me with the stuffy awful presentation style.
Actually, about half the questions are not much more complicated than “Yes/No”. As for the remainder, I am asking only for information that, if the conference was indeed held at the “Supreme” Court, is already held on file.
The correct procedure is to ask for everything you need, and that is what I have done. They know that if they don’t give it to me now they’ll have to disclose it on discovery in the judicial review.
As many evasive government departments have learned to their cost, if they reject a single request for information such as mine they are likely to receive requests from a couple of dozen citizens, each asking one question. Then they have to reply to every question (or think of a different excuse to conceal the information about what they have been up to).
They must have had too much port one night and thought it was a good idea.
And next?
The Crown Prosecution Service/CPS, Gov. U.K.
‘Misconduct in Public Office’
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office
This webpage explains what Misconduct in Office is and what the penalty can be in the U.K.
Where is a man like Cromwell when you need him? Whip this fascist Supreme Court back to the law and beholden to the people and the scales of justice…
It may be “boring” – but this does not mean we can afford to be complacent just because we have a short attention span.
It is this inability of the many to pay close attention to the detail that allows the highly dangerous few to get away with what they do.
At present, there is a major lawsuit before an Ontario, Canada court where the allegation is misfeasance in office by government officials which involves a proposed off-shore wind project.
This case has been in the Ontario news media. Started out as ~ $2 billion but is down to $500 million at last news report.
Located a couple of other misfeasance cases in Canada but don’t appear to be major cases.
re NEWS, Oct.9, 2015
‘Ontario denies Trillium trickery’
Allegation is “misfeasance in public office”.
Case to go to pre-trial in a few more months if a settlement is not reached.
http://www.renews.biz/95302/ontario-denies-trillium-trickery
Case involves a Great Lakes off-shore planned wind project.
Internet search reveals that there have been other cases of “misfeasance in office” before the Canadian courts prior to the above case.
That’s what I thought too, Pamela, but just after 12:00 minutes (as I was about to turn it off) Phillipe Sands really goes on to plumb new depths.
OK, yes I agree – it is really boring, actually. Sorry.
They WANT you to turn it off. Hat of to Moncton to pursue this, tenacity is a Brit’s biggest asset, Thanks. ( laziness seems to be rampant in the rest of the west, we got everything we want and sc.w the rest attitude).
That’s exactly how these things are planned. Bore ‘ordinary’ people out of the meeting.
A long time ago a hard left local politician (very successful and one I would have voted for) explained the ‘system’ to me.
(paraphrasing) You call a meeting and invite everyone and his Dog. Meeting is quorate.
You place all the most boring stuff on the early ‘shift’ and gradually ‘dispose’ of everyone and his Dog via boredom.
When they have all gone home you whip out the real agenda and you and your allies vote it all through.
If the rules of ‘the club’ are phrased correctly then meeting must be quorate but the rules should say nothing about the final vote being quorate. Job done.
Of course they have to be increasingly more inventive since the advent of the cheap video cameras and youtube. Nothing that can’t be dealt with though.
I would assume that, if the Supreme Court grants disclosure and the evidence proves illegal or prejudicial actions on the part of some or all Justices, legal action will follow. I hope that Viscount Monckton will establish a fund to which supporters may contribute to support such legal action.
I don’t believe that there a suggestion of anything ‘illegal’ going on here. Simply a point that at least one ‘Justice’, and possibly more, cannot be relied upon to neutrally hear any case involving certain matters.
And a that seems to be a reasonable set of questions aimed at establishing the point in question.
Here in Britain we don’t have a Constitution, our legal system is (primarily) built upon layers of prior decisions (as I understand it). There could be, for example, a 13C decision of (appeal panel) ‘Judges’ that the brother in law of the King should never have been allowed to oversee a case against the King (and find in his favour).
The 13C case may have involved eg a land dispute but the decision of the appeal Judges back then may have relevance today if Lord Carnwath were to hear a case brought by environmentalists and it were obvious that he would have a bias toward finding for one party in any case presented to him.
There is nothing ‘illegal’ going on in the youtube video. Any information CM might get though may be useful in any appeal of a decision made by Lord Carnwath, and potentially others, when it comes to matters environmental .
Why would any Supreme Court host a one sided ” lecture ” about anything ????
Because they may have been led to believe that there is only one side (that crappy 97% lie), I would say.
Um, Doesn’t a court need ” evidence ” from both sides, before making judgement ????
@Marcus, yes, if they are aware that another side exists.
Philippe Sands, in his speech, talks of highly qualified scientists who have views contrary to the declarations of the IPCC.
The Honorable Sands then speaks forthrightly about the courts having a role to “finally scotching those claims“. As though he just knows those contrary claims are incorrect.
But of course, he knows no such thing. Scotching those claims and squashing those scientists is merely necessary to remove a possible roadblock to Philippe Sands assuming totalitarian power of the moral good.
Philippe Sands’ view is entirely irrational. As noted above, he’s highly intelligent, completely logical (given his assumptions), and not sane.
Philippe Sands says that the single most important thing the International Court could do is “to settle scientific disputes.” (minute 40:45) If there was ever a signal of real insanity, that’s it.
Scientists, well-trained in their own field, cannot settle on-going scientific disputes. Only data and theory can settle scientific disputes. They have always (eventually) done so. There is no other avenue.
And yet, here we have Philippe Sands supposing that people such as himself, completely untrained in any aspect of science, unable to evaluate a quantitative argument, unable to ask the right questions or to know which are the right answers, should have the power to sit in judgement over disputatious scientists and to decide scientific questions.
He’s barking mad.
Philippe Sands displays the hubris of the classical Greek anti-hero; the overweening personal arrogance that that presages utter disaster.
The Supreme Court case that permitted the outlawing of sawed off shot guns, the defendant had died just a few months prior, but the state decided to continue with the case. As a result, only the state presented evidence, there was no one to represent the defendant. The state made the claim that sawed off shot guns were not necessary for the functioning of militia units and thus could be banned. (The fact that sawed off shot guns had been used extensively during the trench warfare of WWI which had ended just a few years prior, not withstanding.)
This is exactly the point concerning Courts and Science. These people have become so desperate, with Paris coming up, that they are more than willing to sacrifice ‘Science’ for their ‘new world order’. I find it incredible that so called ‘Scientists’ are so willing to have their future endeavours governed by Court decisions.
They have no idea what the longer term implications of their current proposals have for ‘Science’ in the longer term.
Legally defined ‘truth’?
I can guarantee that any air breathing Physicist will not bet his home and pension on some gamble that says that nothing, in Physics, will change in the next twenty years. So how would any Physicist accept a decision that his/her research should be governed by a Court ruling.
‘Climate Science’ will have a lot to answer for soon and it won’t be pretty. Gambling the entire future of ‘science’ to obtain immediate political outcomes is going to backfire big time. People will not distinguish one area of Science from another – the whole lot will come down.
MarkW, I’m not a big fan of guns, but am even less a fan of armed executive power. So, I’ve thought about the 2nd Amendment a bit, and realized the whole issue of guns can be clarified by asking oneself where the government itself gets the power to arm its representatives (the military, and the various domestic enforcement branches).
The answer, of course, is that the government’s power to arm itself derives from the same place as all the other powers of the US government: from the people. The Constitution describes powers given by the people to the government. The people and the states retain all rights and powers not surrendered to the government (Amendments IX and X). No article of the Constitution surrenders the right of people to bear arms to the government.
Once this is realized, the intent of the Second Amendment is clear. Its intent is not to permit arms intended for militias. Its intent is to clearly state that the right of the people to bear arms is not yielded at all. An armed populace necessarily can provide a militia. So says the Second Amendment. Militias are citizens self-organized for the defense of their own freedom, with the threat not necessarily restricted to foreign invasion.
The appearance of these baby climate Torquemadas in government shows me the wisdom of that position.
The Supreme Court’s focus on the militia clause as a limit on the right to bear arms has obviously suborned the Constitution. It’s no more than a power grab.
And for those who want to ban guns because of the deaths of innocents, in 2012, about 1100 children between the ages of 1-14 died violent deaths in automobile accidents. (307 kB pdf). That’s about 3 mangled kids per day, every day, all year long. Twenty-one per week, every week.
In comparison, the CDC records 192 children ages 1-15 dying of gun-related homicide in 2013 (Table 10 here (1.3 MB pdf). More about premature deaths here.
We can all agree that every single murder of a child is horrid, disgusting, terrible, and unforgivable. But for anyone passionate about banning guns on account of the children, if you’re not much more passionate about banning cars then you’re not really passionate about the violent deaths of children. You’re just sublimating your passionate opposition to an armed populace.
As a pragmatist, I understand there are horrid local consequences from individual gun ownership (there are horrid local consequences from car ownership), but the larger consequence of a cautious government is a greater and off-setting good; especially in light of the 20th century lesson of governmental mass murder.
Again, I’m not a fan of guns, and I don’t want to spark nonsense arguments about whether the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment means individuals can possess nuclear weapons. But an armed and dangerous population really is the final check on government oppression.
The US government is armed to the teeth. And it’s not the military I worry about but all the paramilitary groups of the executive branch. Unlike war, armed domestic oppression won’t need an act of Congress. I’ll be in favor of a disarmed populace when the world is safe enough for a disarmed government.
Pat Frank,
Well thought out comment. Very good.
The government is not being honest in the least. There is only one reason they want to disarm the citizenry: power.
Every dictatorship in modern history has taken the step of confiscating guns from its citizens. After it does that, it’s smooth sailing.
@MarkW
By extension, it could be argued that any state that bans the possession of .50 caliber BMG rifles is in violation of the Constitution, since those weapons have a very clear military use. Me, I’ve got my eye on a fully functional M1A1 Abrams…
I really do honestly believe they believe the things they believe. I think thy are wrong. They are often quite arrogant, and that is wrong, too (as well as misguided). I say this as an “official member” of the “97% Club”, having co-authored a paper that acknowledges global warming, and a as confirmed skeptic (until and unless, of course, the known facts change).
I don’t think that it matters much what one believes.
Are you willing to see ‘belief’ enforced as ‘science’ (‘science’ = ‘fact’ apparently) by a court of law?
That is where this, in my view, is heading and when it collapses where will this leave all ‘science’?
Are we are to have (UK cat-food advert) “90% of Cats prefer our brand” settled as fact by a court of law?
Must be true if 90% of Cats and a Judge say it is. Who am I to argue differently?
Certainly not. The political abuse is obvious. But I don’t think sincerity is irrelevant when one is trying to combat these things.
That’s the thing 3×2; by law your not allowed to argue it.
I was under the impression that the Suprime Court was for the whole of The United Kingdom and not onlly England and Wales. I think Lord Monkton has got this one wrong. Apart from that it is excellent. Await the reply (if any) bated breath.
The ” judges ” on the panel were from India, Australia and other non U.K. countries !!!! What right do they have to sit in those chairs ?????
Scotland has it’s own judicial system. The Supreme Court is supreme in Scotland for civil matters only. Others matters (in Scotland) are handled by The High Court of Justiciary
Commonwealth
John, Peter – I noticed that too and I wonder if they will use that tiny error as a cause to reject his request. If there’s any truth in this appalling allegation (I mean an allegation of appalling misconduct), they will be very defensive and use any excuse yo delay and deny.
Then Lord Mockton amends the request and re-files it.
In Scotland we are so jealous of our legal system, which is light-years ahead of the UK’s, that we do not really recognize the “Supreme” Court, so we tend to refer to it as the “Supreme” Court of England and Wales. They cannot reject or delay my request for information on the ground that I do not call them what they would like to be called. They must produce either the information or proper reasons why it should not be provided.
As always Thank you.
Well done!
The right of petition: Use it – or lose it
Monckton’s FOIA exercises the
(for Redress of Grievances).
Furthermore:
as preserved in the (English) Bill of Rights (1689). These were codified in the Magna Carta (1215) Sect 61.
These ground the US 1st Amendment’s legal right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Exercise these rights, lest we lose them. See:
Shall Make No Law Abridging …: An Analysis of the Neglected, but Nearly Absolute, Right of Petition Norman B. Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1985-1986)
That is all fair enough excepting that, in this case, it seems that the very people that should be judging any future case have already sacrificed any semblance of neutrality.
This wouldn’t matter too much if we had a Supreme Court with which to finally settle our grievances but … This is our Supreme Court!
Truly dangerous when one gets to see the (UK) real people behind the curtain. Supreme Court, The RS, The BBC … All of them so convinced (much against the actual data) that they can use their power to promote ‘the cause’. This will not end well.
When the Supreme Court itself is unjust, We the People must resort to nullifying unjust law = recognizing that what is unjust is no law. See:
Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges
So in the UK, unjust law and rulings contrary to data, common sense and the scientific method, must be recognized as such and actively considered null and void by citizens and all officers sworn to uphold the constitution.
Firstly … The UK doesn’t have a Constitution and so we can’t uphold one.
The second… The only people able to make final decisions (UK wise) on any legal matter are the very people in the video. This means that, even if we did have a constitution, these would be the very people charged with upholding it.
3×2 Many would disagree with you. e.g. “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis
By Peter Leyland” “Constitutional Documents of the United Kingdom 1782 – 1835 ” “Winston Churchill and the British Constitution” etc. etc. Re: “only people able to make final decisions (UK wise) on any legal matter” Not so. Archbishop Stephen Langton rallied the Barons, putting them under oath to restore the rule of law in England. He led drafting the Magna Carta and they require King John to sign it. That began with “+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.” Similar ending. When the Seven Bishops petitioned for redress over the King’s edict, they were jailed, then the Jury found them not guilty. Parliament then confirmed the right to petition in the Bill of Rights (1689). So both Lords and Commoners have interpreted/restored the Rule of Law, and nullified unjust acts by the King. Learn and exercise your unalienable rights and the UK’s Constitution. http://bit.ly/1ONSUbs
I can promise you that The UK does not have a ‘Constitution’. Simply point me to The UK Constitution. I will then apologise to you below. (hint … don’t waste your valuable time searching for one)
This is a mistake that many on-line UK citizens make. They talk about their ‘right’ to xyz as though they are in The US. The UK does not have a constitution and so UK citizens have no ‘right’ to eg ‘free speech’.
The UK constitution is a myth and I defy you to point to where “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis By Peter Leyland” actually points you to a ‘Constitution’ that can be ‘analysed’.
“(3×2..) Many would disagree with you”. Well opinions, like arse-holes, are something everyone has but not one of them will be able to point me to the UK Constitution. It doesn’t exist.
3×2 By definition, you have “rights” per the (English) Bill of Rights (1689). <a href=http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/what-goods-a-constitution-by-winston-churchill-1874-1965-reprinted-from-the-u-s-constitution-a-reader-published-by-hillsdale-college/#sthash.gcwXHKcY.dpuf
On the UK’s constitution, Winston Churchill himself explained:
Your assertions but reveal your ignorance. Dig deeper. Study harder. Learn wisdom.
I wonder how quick they can get an arrest warrant for Climate Change ???? After all , that is what they are trying to stop after 4 billion years of rampaging across the poor , helpless Earth !!! !!
King Cnut was only doing it to demonstrate how ridiculous it was. It only takes one idiot with influence to miss the point though and soon were all doing it.
King Canute sat down by the sea,
Up came the tide and away went he.
I, too, grew up with the version of Canute, the humble, wise king.
I grew up believing that rust causes tetanus, also.
“Grew up” is just a turn of phrase.
With the new European Arrest Warrant it can be executed anywhere the outer edges of the EU within hours of being requested from any local court.
Dare I hold my breath?
“sine qua non”
The word I think you meant is the vulgar meaning of “sinus”.
Thank you for all your efforts, Lord Monckton.
I think they ought to consider the Dark Matter problem as well.
If they could rule on that it will allow physicists to move on to something new and save a lot of money.
Good man! May your request succeed in every way possible.
Always thankful to Lord Monckton for his efforts to denounce what has to be denounced. However in this case, while some of the questions possed definitely merit a request of information under the FOIA… were that many questions needed? I don’t think that we need a reply for a good number of them, the truth is evident. Why is it needed that they officially confirm what can already be proven easily? Why do we need them to confess that they did what we can already prove that they did? Is it some sort of frightening strategy, where the very number of questions is supposed to scare the person being asked?
I love Lord Monckton’s retoric, his use of the language, but on this one occasion it looks like some of the things were written just for the pure joy of reading them later, and not for any practical objective.
You must ask for everything in writing because liberal eco-terrorists will deny even the most obvious ( like natural climate change ) !!!!
Ya, him be well spoke.
In response to Nylo, the evidential standard for a judicial review proceeding is high, and it is a simple matter for the “Supreme” Court to confirm whether the record that is publicly available is official, complete, and accurate. If it is accurate, the “Supreme” Court is in deep trouble.
If they are proved to have lied, aren’t they in even deeper trouble?
If they are proved to have lied, aren’t they in even deeper trouble?
As I have said elsewhere, this isn’t about lies. This is about obtaining a simple confirmation that one or more high level UK judges cannot be relied upon to make an impartial decision in certain cases given their previous recorded statements.
I don’t know exactly how this would work under The US judicial system but I suspect it would be very similar.
You couldn’t have Nixon’s brother-in-law judging a case against Nixon. It would leave every critic with a gaping hole to exploit. The Judge must, if we are to believe in the neutrality of the law, withdraw from any Nixon related case.
Same here but for ‘environmental’ cases and Judge A (possibly C,F and G too).
Thanks Lord Monckton for the reply. I totally agree that it is mandatory to confirm that the record publicly available is official, complete and accurate. Just to clarify, I was more referring to questions like number 12:
12. Please state whether a person named as “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Also, given that question 5 already asks for “a complete list of all participants in the conference, indicating all who spoke, with all records of their remarks and all transcripts of the proceedings“, and that question 3 already asks for confirmation “that the video of part of the Supreme Court’s propaganda event at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI is a complete and accurate record of the segment of the event that it purports to cover“, then why the need of questions 16 through 18 for confirmation that some comments known to be made by Lord Carnwath or Philippe Sands QC were actually made.
Best regards.
I have already answered Nylo. The evidential standard in the UK courts is high. I have asked the questions that will generate the information I need.
Thank you.
Lord Monckton,
The loss of the Citizens Grand Jury in the U.K and elsewhere, except the U.S., which could keep government corruption in check was a severe blow to freedom, IMO. It stood for about a thousand years to protect the people from government corruption.
Citizens Grand Jury not much used now in the U.S. but at least it is still included in U.S. law.
My only objections to his lordship are on the occasions when he cannot (or will not) resist heaping scorn on those who heap scorn on him (and, yeah, I know, they heaped first). But having said that, I respect his courage and tenacity. I tend not to delve into the politics of all this, however (and I have an Ivy League MA in what amounts to power politics). The scientific community will eventually answer this, and the politics, writ large, will follow on (or just drift off) as they always do (the beastly little horrors).
But regardless of the spitballing over factors of his model, he is going about it right — using a top-down approach that can be expanded or altered simply and clearly. (I could say the same for the Lewis/Curry model.) That is a critical step in the right direction. The CMIP3\5 stuff is a black box full of incomprehensible mush.
What is CMIP3\5 ??
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
CIMP 5 is used by UNEP IPCC AR4.
TonyL, a minor correction. CMIP3 was used for AR4. CMIP5 was used for AR5. I have no clue why the 3/4 labeling discrepancy compared to 5. Just is.
a very dangerous precedent. lawyers and judges seeking to use the courts to enforce their belief systems.
Why not use the international courts to decide if God exists or if it will rain tomorrow? How is that any different than deciding what may or may not happen to climate in the future?
Tell us Philippe Sands QC, where does the International Court stand on the question of the existence of God? Can the courts tell us if it will rain tomorrow? Yet the courts can be very sure the climate will warm due to humans, and that warming will be harmful, beyond that standard of legal doubt!!
Utter rubbish. The court has no idea what will happen tomorrow, which is why a fundamental pillar of justice is that you cannot claim damages for what might happen, only what did happen. With a stroke of the pen our learned judges, sworn to uphold our freedoms are instead seeking to help enslave us, in return for their 30 pieces of silver.
The Betrayal by Judas is mild in comparison. Our ancestors that fought and died for our freedoms are turning over in their graves.
++100
Correction ..What is ” proven ” to have caused damage !! I would love to see Glo.Bull Warming alarmists prove their ideas in a U.S. court of law ..
Glo.Bull Warming alarmists prove their ideas in a U.S. court of law
===============
you start by finding the right judge…
Yeah, well – see the ongoing saga (an old Lancashire word for rice pudding)* of Michael Mann vs the irrepressible Mark Steyn. It seems that in the US, you can try to drag out any undesirable attempt to get at the truth.
*Sorry, but I got that from a Mike Harding track…
Already happened. How do you think the EPA now has the power to regulate CO2 emissions?
They’ve reduced the law to fortune telling. Idiots!
Tell us Philippe Sands QC, where does the International Court stand on the question of the existence of God?
Unfortunately I don’t think that those calling for legal sanctions have actually thought that far ahead. It may seem easy and convenient to have a Court rule upon a particular scientific issue right now for immediate political ends but that would end science in the longer run.
How about I use the decision from a ‘global worming’ case in 2016 as a basis to outlaw certain avenues of scientific research come 2017. My case is that they may be potentially dangerous, some scientists agree and the Judge agrees too. Still want to remain silent Mr/Mrs Scientist. See where this is heading?
One could more properly ask “Where does God stand on the question of Sand’s existence before the International Court?”
(Or should that be: “Where does God stand on Sand’s existence before, beside, or in front of anything?”)
Nomckton; got to love the guy.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene WR Gallun
October 17, 2015 at 10:52 am
“Nomckton; got to love the guy. (sic).” sp. Try Moncton.
Oops!!! Monckton
The pokey-stick sharpened and a jab delivered
– will they ignore or rise to the provocatively delivered bait?
Enough rhetorical devices, veiled insult and legalese in there to set light to a pompous idjit’s fuse – I really hope it works ….
If it does what it’s supposed to – then I can imagine a Parliamentary Bill reinstating Seditious Libel in England appearing quite promptly….
I hope it’s not a damp squib 🙂
If the results of FOI requests made to the BBC by Andrew Montford as detailed in his excellent book “The Propaganda Bureau” are anything to go by the chances of getting any replies to these requests must be pretty close to zero.
Gil, you miss the point. If you read the letter Viscount Monckton also informs the Supreme Court that a judicial review is being requested. Any refusal to supply information under FOIA will be evidence to the judicial review of malfeasance and the judicial review will with its own powers request precisely the same information in ‘discovery’. So the standard bureaucratic delaying practices will only become evidence against the members of the Supreme Court at the forthcoming judicial review. A nice Morton’s fork.
After losing ta Freedom of Information case at the House of Lords (predecessor to the Supreme Court) the BBC found a loophole in the Freedom of Information Act which entitled it to withhold information that it says us required for the purposes of journalism. The Supreme Court would not be able to hide behind the same loophole.
Wkipedia has a good summary of the disgraceful manner in which the BBC hid a report that confirmed its anti-Israel bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report
If ever the BBC commissioned an independent report into its CAGW bias you can guarantee that it would never see the light of day.
Thank you, Lord Monckton. Please continue “Slicing and Dicing”.
Lord Monckton,
Para. 2, first sentence of the letter –
‘However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. ‘
Should that not be ‘… remains the possibility …’?
Benefit of the doubt old boy & all the more galling for the perpetrators having to insist it did indeed take place.
Excellent!
Hilarious. Popcorn time.