This web-site is dedicated to the memory of the niece of our founder; a fine young lady who was caused to take her  own life because of her father's, and his clan's, cruel attitude to her needs. Read about the circumstances that lead to the tragic loss of that life. Consider that it was all because of GREED. Precisely what our legal system serves for the operatives through ILL legal services care of our legal experts and the modus operandi from within.  (access ..../summons.html)

SIX months before taking her own life that fine young lady proclaimed to our founder :- "I can't understand it uncle everyone thinks of bricks mortar and money NO ONE CARES ABOUT PEOPLE".

the human-rights web site

email:- violations@human-rights.freeservers.com

All underlined text with an asterisk indicates a LINK at the bottom of the page

Page Revised: January 05, 2000.

Court of Appeal ruling case

 The Common Law Offence of    'Misconduct in Public Office'

"The appellant...... was on duty...... took no steps to..... HE WAS CHARGED in an indictment with misconduct whilst acting as an officer of justice in that he deliberately failed to carry out his duty...... by willfully omitting to take any steps to........ bring to justice....... At the trial he objected to the indictment on the grounds that it did not disclose an offence known to the law. The trial judge ruled against the objection and the trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the appellant was convicted. He appealed against the conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in ruling that the indictment disclosed an offence known to law. The appellant conceded that at common law there existed an offence of misconduct in public office, but contended that mere non-feasance by a person in the discharge of his duty as the holder of a public office was insufficient to constitute the offence and there had to be a malfeasance or, at least, a misfeasance involving corruption or fraud."

The Court of Appeal HELD:

"A public officer who willfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglected to perform any duty he was bound to perform by common law or statute was indictable for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The element of culpability required was not restricted to corruption or dishonesty, although it had to be such that the conduct impugned was calculated to injure the public interest and called for punishment. Whether there was such conduct was a matter for the jury on the evidence. Since the indictment alleged deliberate and willful neglect by the appellant to perform his duty...... it disclosed an offence of misconduct in public office. It followed that the judge's ruling had been correct and that the appeal would be dismissed".

Link to:     C.A.P's INDEX    Fraud Vitiates Judgements ruling    Corrupt Britain    The LAW

Revised: January 05, 2000.

Copyright subsists on all material on our web-site, owned by the authors of same.