Please clarify the facts

Stuart made this Freedom of Information request to The Law Society
This authority is not subject to FOI law, so is not legally obliged to respond (details).


This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by The Law Society of their handling of this request.

Dear The Law Society,

Given that a Judge is under the following oath of office

Judicial Oath
I, NAME, do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of ...., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm (colony), without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.

Please could you tell me if the following below is true.

In relations to the article here at his link,- http://www.metro.co.uk/news/857455-judge... - would it be true to say that a judge who refuses to admit his oath of office on request would be guilty of the following under the Fraud Act 2006 and if not please could you state why not:

And would this also apply to Councils issuing their own summonses? As the Fraud ACT 2006 states:

I a Judge by refusing to give his oath when required to by law in contempt of court under

The Fraud Act 2006

(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
B
2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance
with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things
in action and other intangible property).
(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting
what one does not have.
Fraud

THIS ALSO APPLIES & TO COUNCILS ISSUING A SUMMONS

7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply
any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in
connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both)

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Russell Cocks

Information Compliance, The Law Society

Dear Mr Cocks

The Law Society represents and regulates solicitors in England and Wales.
See link below for more information:

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/home.law

Your email is a request for legal advice rather than a request for
information. The Law Society is unable to provide legal advice.

I am sorry I have been unable to help you on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Information Compliance,

I am not requesting advice, I'm asking you to tell the truth given you supposedly represent "The Law".

Any refusal to answer will be deemed as an abdication of responsibility towards the people and you agree by tacit agreement and acquiescence to be complicit in aiding and abetting in perverting the course of justice.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Russell Cocks

Stuart left an annotation ()

I further suggest you refresh your memories' about a "Notice of dishonour"

Stuart left an annotation ()

I further suggest you read the above act: especially the part that speaks of withholding information as a crime!

Information Compliance, The Law Society

Dear Mr Cocks

I am sorry that the Law Society cannot help you with this enquiry.

As stated in my previous email, the Law Society represents and regulates
solicitors in England and Wales; it does not "represent the Law".

As your question relates to judges, it may be that the Bar Council will be
able to help. There is a link to their web site below.

[1]http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Stuart - The key word within the 2006 Act in relation to failing to disclose information, in this context, is 'legal'.

A Judge is under NO 'legal' obligation to confirm or deny that they are acting under their oath of office when conducting a hearing. If they choose not to respond to such a question this is not 'Fraud' in the context of the 2006 Act.

The oath is personal to the Judge and simply part of the process under which they are appointed and carry out their duties.

For the Judge to be sitting in Court and acting in that role is evidence itself that they are properly appointed and empowered. To have any impact or effect on proceedings, the oath would only be a factor if it could be proven that the particular person acting as Judge had not taken it (meaning they had not been properly appointed).

Since the appointment of all Judges is publically available information - and recorded by the Lord Chancellor's Office, an 'impostor' would be easily identified if they were crazy enough to try.

No offence intended, but as advised you really need to speak to a solicitor before looking to relay on this particular argument as any kind of defence or grounds for appeal.

Footnote: Stuart and I are corresponding outside WDTK on a related issue - this annotation is simply intended to highlight a particular point of misinterpretation/misunderstanding for other readers.

Becky

Stuart left an annotation ()

Not true!

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Which part exactly? Sorry if you don't like the answer, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Stuart left an annotation ()

Ratification of commencement comes before jurisdiction. I.e. If a Prosecutor doesn't know if he works for the Crown Monarchy or the Crown Temple then he has no Standus loci, equally so of a third party witness.

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Stuart - By which logic, as long as a Prosecutor 'knows' who he works for/represents he/she is under no obligation to prove that knowledge prior to carryng out his/her duties.

The Crown is the Crown, in the context of the original request, representing the State acting on the traditional/historic authority of the Monarch within the structure of a Constitutional Monarchy.

This is an old thread - lets just leave it at 'we agree to disagree on some points'. We're both in a different place now anyway.

Becky